Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
And Flickr is just pointless toss*. Jonathan - if you're likely to be at the Google Developers' love-in on the 31st, I'll quite happily discuss the difference between useability and accessibilty with you over a pint**. Cheers, Rich. * And I wait to be contradicted Too late. I read that about FLICKR in the Register, so it must be true! ** That goes for anyone else who fancies a pint and an argument. :-) Stick the details on Upcoming? http://upcoming.yahoo.com/ :-) Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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/
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
It's true the flashearth site is fast and keyboard accessible, but again with a mouse it's nearly useless. similarly for flickr no doubt there are sites that suit each, but I've yet to see one that's easy to use and universally accessible, or even close cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 17 May 2007, at 01:47, Christopher Woods wrote: Whoah, that FlashEarth site is awesome! Love that interface, very subtle and really responsive. @ Simon Cobb: you another GMSV reader? ;) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' 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, ~:'' [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:
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
On 17/05/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true the flashearth site is fast and keyboard accessible, but again with a mouse it's nearly useless. similarly for flickr no doubt there are sites that suit each, but I've yet to see one that's easy to use and universally accessible, or even close http://www.neighbourhoodfixit.com? - 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/
RE: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
http://www.neighbourhoodfixit.com? Haven't seen that before but to celebrate, I've just reported a broken lampost to my local council :) - 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/
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Can I just say that although useable and accessible are often closely interlinked, they're *not* the same thing? Jakob Bloody Nielsen was talking about useability, Jonathan (OK, it's his job to do so) is talking about accessibility. What I said earlier was that Google Maps is a great example of a useable site. I'm not going to comment on its accessibility. And Flickr is just pointless toss*. Jonathan - if you're likely to be at the Google Developers' love-in on the 31st, I'll quite happily discuss the difference between useability and accessibilty with you over a pint**. Cheers, Rich. * And I wait to be contradicted ** That goes for anyone else who fancies a pint and an argument. :-) On 5/17/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true the flashearth site is fast and keyboard accessible, but again with a mouse it's nearly useless. similarly for flickr no doubt there are sites that suit each, but I've yet to see one that's easy to use and universally accessible, or even close cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 17 May 2007, at 01:47, Christopher Woods wrote: Whoah, that FlashEarth site is awesome! Love that interface, very subtle and really responsive. @ Simon Cobb: you another GMSV reader? ;) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' 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, ~:'' [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.
