Odeo.com is a classic example of a Web2 site which looks very nice but unfortunately suffers from a REAL lack of usability. I actually used the site to add a new entry to my podcast on there, and then ranted about how hard it was to do so (and half of their in-page embedded players STILL don't work for ANY podcast on there, it's just mad!)
Might do another rant too, and email them the link to listen to it... Fortunately though odeo is among the minority (even odder considering the same people are behind twitter, and that's such an easy site to use!) Sites like Newsvine and Flickr really get my vote for being great Web2 standard-bearers, I don't use Flickr that much (I'd rather keep my pictures on my own site, and I don't use it enough to bother with Pro status) but for the most part I've not had any problem using Web2 sites. The whole nature of them being dynamic and not having to wait for clicks to load entirely new pages adds to the experience for me. Nielsen loves going off on one. I've often thought he should practice what he preaches and spruce up his site a little bit, it's always reeked of 1996. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 May 2007 17:10 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' > > Well you can scroll around with the arrow keys and zoom in > and out with > + and -. Not sure how you change to satellite using keys, but I'm sure > its in there. > > ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: > > Richard, > > > > how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? > > > > cheers > > > > Jonathan Chetwynd > > > > > > > > On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: > > > > This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than > > accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely > > related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, > > it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any > actual problems > > - in this case he's got a point. "Web 2.0" sites are often > completely > > unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's > > been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may > > well have improved) another. > > > > Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent > > intuitive design and useability. > > > > Just as the phrase "Web 2.0" means different things to all people (I > > avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound > > like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue > what he's > > actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all "Web 2.0" sites with the > > same brush. > > > > Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen > > wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less > I hear of > > and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rich. > > > > On 5/15/07, "~:'' ありがとうございました。" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Jason & Gordon > >> > >> any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? > >> or are you in a rush? > >> > >> cheers > >> > >> Jonathan Chetwynd > >> > >> > >> > >> On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: > >> > >> This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. > >> > >> Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court > >> controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. > >> > >> "Web 2.0"[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice > methodologies > >> of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as > >> progressive enhancement etc) and "trusting users as > co-developers" [2]. > >> These core principals of "Web 2.0" encourage good design. > >> > >> As with any technology, "Web 2.0" will be misused - it's not the > >> technology's fault that this happens, it's the > designer/developer that > >> fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when > you're goading > >> mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? > >> > >> J > >> > >> [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think "Web 2.0" > means different > >> things to different people. > >> [2] Tim O'Reilly > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' ???????????? > >> Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 > >> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > >> Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting > good design' > >> > >> Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' > >> > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm > >> > >> seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~:" > >> > >> has he been invited? > >> > >> was I? > >> > >> did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an > accessible SVG front > >> end? > >> > >> cheers > >> > >> Jonathan Chetwynd > >> Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet > >> > >> http://www.eas-i.co.uk > >> > >> > >> - > >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > >> please visit > >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > >> Unofficial list archive: > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > >> > >> - > >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > >> please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ > >> mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- > >> archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > >> > >> - > >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, > >> please visit > >> http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > >> Unofficial list archive: > >> http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > >> > > > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
