On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 07:46:09, Jeff Seager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do like the "look and feel" presented by James Bond's example, > but try to navigate schematic.com without a mouse. Design that > hinders or disallows basic functionality should not be considered a > step forward, but in these wild west days of Web 2.0, it often is. > Google Mail is a much better example of taking Web 2.0 in a positive > direction, and user response to it is proof. >
I agree the site isn't accessible, but is that a goal of the site? Are the majority of their potential clients going to be trying to use the site w/o a mouse, using a screen reader, etc? Most likely not. They might be there to get an impression of the capabilities of the company, and they'll probably be looking for great graphic design and a unique experience that leaves an impression. The site accomplished exactly that, at least to me. It's original, looks great and is fun & easy to use. I spent about 10 minutes just playing around and looking at the firms work. I agree with Robert's comment that the site is brilliant. I feel like we get carried away on standards, guidelines, etc. Those are appropriate in most cases, but there's nothing wrong with a site that focuses on originality, fun & aesthetics. If accessibility is a concern, they could easily make a toned down standards compliant html version that houses the same content and is completely accessible. Jeff ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
