Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Andrew Maben wrote:

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Philip Kiff wrote:


...you are not approaching the client-designer relationship in a way

that means "the customer is always right".  You are rather approaching it

from a perspective that the customer does not know what is right...



The client is hiring you, presumably, because you provide expertise she 
does not possess. Obviously there is no call for being confrontational, 
but if the client is proposing design directions that are in fact 
contrary to her own best interests, aren't we ethically obliged to point 
this out and provide alternatives? No matter what the business of the 
site's owner may be, if the site is not accessible to, and usable by its 
*target audience* then the site will fail. And guess who's going to be 
blamed for that failure...




This is quite true however is not common practice.

One of the problems many websites face is where they are positioned in an
organisation.

If it is the communication/publicity department, they probably see it as a
campaign and possibly even the latest iteration/campaign.

If it is the IT department they see it as an ongoing maintenance and support
night mare - quickly becoming another legacy system.

The reality is that websites provide a new way of business that impact on
everyone from the telephone call centre staff (they will get more complicated 
calls) - information will be sought from the website.


Ofcourse, everyone also has a view of what is good and bad graphic design. It is
probably not worth fighting over the look which should be consistant with their 
printed style.


Making the system usable is much more difficult - but you do need to identify
objectives and performance indicators.
see


Marghanita
--
Marghanita da Cruz
http://www.ramin.com.au
Phone: 0414 869202




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Steve Green]

I am one of Accessites' partners, so I am very familiar with the Showcase.
There are certainly some very good sites there, but in the 18 months or so
that the site has been live only 5 have achieved the Classic rating and none
has achieved the top rating of Timeless.

The 5 Classic sites are very good for their respective purposes, but they
still fall short of the 'stunning visuals' that both Accessites and our
customer are looking for. There's no escaping the fact that you can create
very engaging forms of interaction with Flash that you just can't achieve
with W3C technologies.

Steve

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John Faulds
Sent: 15 August 2007 22:57
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

> That's a shame because I really need stunning examples of accessible, 
> standards-compliant design to show our clients what is possible.

Is there nothing on Accessites.org that makes the grade?

--
Tyssen Design
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[John Faulds]

That's a shame because I really need stunning examples of accessible,
standards-compliant design to show our clients what is possible.


Is there nothing on Accessites.org that makes the grade?

--
Tyssen Design
www.tyssendesign.com.au
Ph: (07) 3300 3303
Mb: 0405 678 590


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] (X)HTML Best Practice Sheet - CSS issues

[Anders Nawroth]

Keryx Web skrev:
The Open Office version has a nice feature. The headings are fixed when 
you scroll. One can't duplicate that in a table with CSS as far as I 
know ("position: fixed" for table columns and rows...)



You are looking for thead/tbody HTML elements:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/tables.html#edef-THEAD
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/TS/html401/cp1001/1001-THEAD-TBODY-TFOOT-OVERFLOW.html
http://www.imaputz.com/cssStuff/bigFourVersion.html


/AndersN


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Steve Green]

The http://www.fosterandpartners.com is not a good example at all. I can see
at a glance that it violates at least three WCAG Priority 2 checkpoints, and
that's without even looking at the code. Some pages violate Priority 1
requirements too.

That's a shame because I really need stunning examples of accessible,
standards-compliant design to show our clients what is possible.

Steve

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Designer
Sent: 15 August 2007 13:20
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?


>Frank Palinkas wrote:
  >
> IMHO I would like to add one important factor to this.
Money.


I would like to throw a spanner in the works here. There are cases where a
client is as interested in PRESTIGE  as he is in money. See, for
example:

http://www.habitat.co.uk/uk/main_uk.htm

as a case where prestige/image is crucial to the business.  However, if you
want see an example where prestige is also crucial, but the designer
  has use compliant methods and passed 508 validation (at least) see:


http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx

An excellent site!  It is interesting to note that, 12 months ago, this site
was Flash, with a poor html version as second choice. This is no longer
necessary. Inspirational work!

My point is that the client shouldn't need to know anything about the inner
cogs and wheels. An experienced  designer should  be able to give
the client whatever he wants and (although often difficult and
challenging) he can do this without sacrificing standards or accessibility.

--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Steve Green]

"Explain to them how much more money they can make..."

Just how much can they make? Where's the proof? That's what they always ask
and that's what we can't answer. There are no plausible case studies to
support this. It's pure conjecture. Yes I do know about the Legal & General
case study but so many factors are involved that it is impossible to
quantify the benefit deriving from the improved accessibility or standards
compliance. They were also starting from a very poor base.

And they don't necessarily want everyone to view their website. Marketers
specialise in segmentation, meaning that they want to present the best value
proposition for their target market. Their target market is rarely everyone,
and for some products it may be a very narrow demographic.

We're asking them to risk losing some of what they already have in return
for an unquantifiable benefit. By contrast, we have nothing to lose. Is it
any wonder they are sceptical?

Steve
 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Frank Palinkas
Sent: 15 August 2007 12:14
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

Hi,

IMHO I would like to add one important factor to this. Money.

>From my experience, regardless of how "pretty", "wow", etc., a client wants
their site to be, what they're really saying to you is that they need it to
produce a load of money for them. Keep that foremost in mind when design
decisions are being made. An accessible, standards-based, semantic, and
fully usable website is worth its weight in gold. Ask the client how many
users he wants coming in the virtual front door and making a purchase.
They'll probably say everyone. However, they don't think of the multitudes
of physically challenged/disabled users also looking for their products.
Guide them in this direction. Explain to them how much more money they can
make by establishing an all-user friendly storefront. Boring? Last time I
checked, money wasn't boring.

If that doesn't work, then politely wish them a good day and congratulations
on eventually becoming their own best customer.

Kind regards,
Frank

 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Imageready CS3

[Nancy Gill]

You're right .. Fireworks isn't the same .. thank goodness!  Sorry .. I haven't 
used ImageReady since version 1.0.  It was horrible, IMO.  FYI . Fireworks 
isn't the replacement.  Photoshop is.  The important aspects of IR were ported 
into Photoshop CS3.  

Nancy Gill
Adobe Community Expert
Author:  Dreamweaver 8 e-book for the DMX Zone
Co-Author:  Dreamweaver MX: Instant Troubleshooter (August, 2003)
Technical Editor:  Dreamweaver CS3: The Missing Manual, 
 DMX 2004: The Complete Reference,  DMX 2004: A Beginner's Guide 
 Mastering Macromedia Contribute
Technical Reviewer: Dynamic Dreamweaver MX/DMX: Advanced PHP Web Development

  - Original Message - 
  From: Paul Collins 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:50 AM
  Subject: [WSG] Imageready CS3


  Is it bothering anyone else out there that they've removed Imageready in CS3? 
I've tried to use Fireworks and it just isn't the same...

  Anyway, I found this petition online, quite short of signatures so far, but I 
guess no-one is really putting it out there and it's only been up a month. 
  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/imageready-cs3/

  (to see the signatures, click the "signatures" link at the top. You don't 
have to donate, don't click that link...) 

  So, if it bothers you as well, sign the petition, help start the revolution :)

  I hope this is on topic, isn't it?!

  ***
  List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
  Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
  Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ***


--


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.19/953 - Release Date: 8/14/2007 
5:19 PM


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] Imageready CS3

[Paul Collins]

Is it bothering anyone else out there that they've removed Imageready in
CS3? I've tried to use Fireworks and it just isn't the same...

Anyway, I found this petition online, quite short of signatures so far, but
I guess no-one is really putting it out there and it's only been up a month.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/imageready-cs3/

(to see the signatures, click the "signatures" link at the top. You don't
have to donate, don't click that link...)

So, if it bothers you as well, sign the petition, help start the revolution
:)

I hope this is on topic, isn't it?!


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Kevin Lennon]

James Jeffery wrote:

However, if
you want see an example where prestige is also crucial, but the designer
  has use compliant methods and passed 508 validation (at least) see:

 http://www.fosterandpartners

.com/Practice/Default.aspx



I dont mean to pick on this website, but from looking at the source i 
can already

see a few minor faults. Maybe there is a purpose, i dont know. But the
navigation links should be within a list. There is an empty div for 
the divider,

there are other methods to do the same thing.

Anyway taking this back on topic. Ive seen a number of great replies to
this message, its made me think a little more and before i write this 
article i best

get back to the drawing board with some hard facts.

And back to the point regarding laws, i cant see how they would create
and major limitations, a law to say that a website must be accessible and
follow the guidelines set wouldn't hold much back. Or some sort of 
convention
so that disabled users can quickly find there way to the accessible 
pages.


I will have a good hard think about this over the next day or so.

Thanks All.



On 8/15/07, *Designer* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:



>Frank Palinkas wrote:
  >
> IMHO I would like to add one important factor to
this. Money.


I would like to throw a spanner in the works here. There are cases
where
a client is as interested in PRESTIGE  as he is in money. See, for
example:

http://www.habitat.co.uk/uk/main_uk.htm

as a case where prestige/image is crucial to the
business.  However, if
you want see an example where prestige is also crucial, but the
designer
  has use compliant methods and passed 508 validation (at least) see:


http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx


An excellent site!  It is interesting to note that, 12 months ago,
this
site was Flash, with a poor html version as second choice. This is no
longer necessary. Inspirational work!

My point is that the client shouldn't need to know anything about the
inner cogs and wheels. An experienced  designer should  be
able
to give the client whatever he wants and (although often difficult and
challenging) he can do this without sacrificing standards or
accessibility.

--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk 



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

***



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 
Interesting that  http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx 
page passes the HTML validation but fails the CSS validation as provided 
by the W3C. The other pages on the site Also fail validation on HTML as 
well. I have yet to see a web page that is fully compliant with 
HTML,CSS,WAI that was appealing to the eyes let alone done with 
Macromedia Flash.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[James Jeffery]

However, if
you want see an example where prestige is also crucial, but the designer
  has use compliant methods and passed 508 validation (at least) see:

http://www.fosterandpartners
>
> .com/Practice/Default.aspx



I dont mean to pick on this website, but from looking at the source i can
already
see a few minor faults. Maybe there is a purpose, i dont know. But the
navigation links should be within a list. There is an empty div for the
divider,
there are other methods to do the same thing.

Anyway taking this back on topic. Ive seen a number of great replies to
this message, its made me think a little more and before i write this
article i best
get back to the drawing board with some hard facts.

And back to the point regarding laws, i cant see how they would create
and major limitations, a law to say that a website must be accessible and
follow the guidelines set wouldn't hold much back. Or some sort of
convention
so that disabled users can quickly find there way to the accessible pages.

I will have a good hard think about this over the next day or so.

Thanks All.



On 8/15/07, Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Frank Palinkas wrote:
>   >
> > IMHO I would like to add one important factor to this.
> Money.
>
>
> I would like to throw a spanner in the works here. There are cases where
> a client is as interested in PRESTIGE  as he is in money. See, for
> example:
>
> http://www.habitat.co.uk/uk/main_uk.htm
>
> as a case where prestige/image is crucial to the business.  However, if
> you want see an example where prestige is also crucial, but the designer
>   has use compliant methods and passed 508 validation (at least) see:
>
>
> http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx
>
> An excellent site!  It is interesting to note that, 12 months ago, this
> site was Flash, with a poor html version as second choice. This is no
> longer necessary. Inspirational work!
>
> My point is that the client shouldn't need to know anything about the
> inner cogs and wheels. An experienced  designer should  be able
> to give the client whatever he wants and (although often difficult and
> challenging) he can do this without sacrificing standards or
> accessibility.
>
> --
> Bob
>
> www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Designer]

Frank Palinkas wrote:

 >
> IMHO I would like to add one important factor to this. Money.


I would like to throw a spanner in the works here. There are cases where 
a client is as interested in PRESTIGE  as he is in money. See, for 
example:


http://www.habitat.co.uk/uk/main_uk.htm

as a case where prestige/image is crucial to the business.  However, if 
you want see an example where prestige is also crucial, but the designer 
 has use compliant methods and passed 508 validation (at least) see:


http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Practice/Default.aspx

An excellent site!  It is interesting to note that, 12 months ago, this 
site was Flash, with a poor html version as second choice. This is no 
longer necessary. Inspirational work!


My point is that the client shouldn't need to know anything about the 
inner cogs and wheels. An experienced  designer should  be able 
to give the client whatever he wants and (although often difficult and 
challenging) he can do this without sacrificing standards or accessibility.


--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

James Jeffery wrote:
When i said design, i was referring to the hi-end graphical content. 
The sites that are there to amaze people and go 'how did they do 
that' which is they way alot of people seem to be heading due to 
convention.


That's the "visual design" part of a visual design. Much like 'CSS Zen
garden' and with the same weaknesses as many visual designs there.
Visual design doesn't have to get in the way of overall design, but it
tends to.


A client generally knows nothing about anything, he tells you what he
 wants and expects the result. This is what im talking about. The 
clients see sites with some eye candy, and want something 'better' 
than that. If you give them a site that looks like, say the 
microformats site (which is a perfect example of the way websites 
these days should be) then there usual reply is ('Its boring, there 
isnt much to it').


Boring but informative.
You may have to add some "eye candy" - for the client, after the
usability/accessibility sides of it are in place.
Of course: too much "eye candy" may turn it into "interesting, but not
worth a revisit", but a client who knows nothing about nothing may not
be aware of - or interested in - that part.

I understand it is possible to create some amazing sites with 
usability and accessibility at the front of the line, but the only 
people that know this are people like you and me, again a client 
knows nothing and 90% of them don't care.They just want what they 
asked for. If you question why his navigation fonts are very small, 
his reply is something like ("becuase i need to fit them all on the 
one line so it dont look like the navigation is taking focus") and 
you cant really argue the point, because they dont tend to listen.


All you can say to that is: "Ok, but it can't be guaranteed to work like
that in any browser on earth, no matter who on earth creates or designs it".
You may of course be challenged to prove such a statement from time to
time, but that isn't hard if you know how browsers work.

I dont know what clients others have worked with, ive worked with 
some right nasty ones, they tell the designer onthe other end of the 
office how they want it, if you attempt to pick at it, they tell you 
there going to go elsewere, no i cant argue, ill get the sack.


It's definitely hard to argue about quality under such circumstances.
Making a living in web design can be hard, and it isn't the browsers and
their bugs and limitations that add most to the workload.

Again, you may have to add some "eye candy" - for the client, after the
usability/accessibility sides of it are in place.


Tis why i said, if there was a law the client would have no choice.


Laws may easily act as limitations on an open web, so I don't think
there should be anything but sensible guidelines.
OTOH: there's no laws against creativity on top of a solid "canvas"
either...

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Andrew Maben]

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Philip Kiff wrote:


...you are not approaching the client-designer relationship in a way
that means "the customer is always right".  You are rather  
approaching it

from a perspective that the customer does not know what is right...


The client is hiring you, presumably, because you provide expertise  
she does not possess. Obviously there is no call for being  
confrontational, but if the client is proposing design directions  
that are in fact contrary to her own best interests, aren't we  
ethically obliged to point this out and provide alternatives? No  
matter what the business of the site's owner may be, if the site is  
not accessible to, and usable by its *target audience* then the site  
will fail. And guess who's going to be blamed for that failure...


Andrew

http://www.andrewmaben.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"In a well designed user interface, the user should not need  
instructions."





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Andrew Maben]

On Aug 14, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Andrew Boyd wrote:

It is scary that people still make the distinction between “design”  
and “usability/accessibility/fitness for purpose”.


Exactly! While “usability/accessibility/fitness for purpose” alone do  
not define "good" design, good design *must* encompass “usability/ 
accessibility/fitness for purpose”, and any design that fails to do  
so is not "good".


In case anyone missed it, there's an interesting and provocative  
discussion on the Adaptive Path blog:


http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/17/why-usability-is-a-path- 
to-failure/


and

http://www.adaptivepath.com/blog/2007/07/20/usability-and-failure-a- 
recap/



Andrew

http://www.andrewmaben.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

"In a well designed user interface, the user should not need  
instructions."





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Frank Palinkas]

Hi,

 

IMHO I would like to add one important factor to this. Money.

 

>From my experience, regardless of how "pretty", "wow", etc., a client wants
their site to be, what they're really saying to you is that they need it to
produce a load of money for them. Keep that foremost in mind when design
decisions are being made. An accessible, standards-based, semantic, and fully
usable website is worth its weight in gold. Ask the client how many users he
wants coming in the virtual front door and making a purchase. They'll
probably say everyone. However, they don't think of the multitudes of
physically challenged/disabled users also looking for their products. Guide
them in this direction. Explain to them how much more money they can make by
establishing an all-user friendly storefront. Boring? Last time I checked,
money wasn't boring.

 

If that doesn't work, then politely wish them a good day and congratulations
on eventually becoming their own best customer.

 

Kind regards,

Frank

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Jeffery
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August, 2007 12:27 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

 

Ok i think some people have missed the point a bit, but its probably my
fault.

When i said design, i was referring to the hi-end graphical content. The
sites that are
there to amaze people and go 'how did they do that' which is they way alot of
people 
seem to be heading due to convention.

A client generally knows nothing about anything, he tells you what he wants
and
expects the result. This is what im talking about. The clients see sites with
some
eye candy, and want something 'better' than that. If you give them a site
that looks 
like, say the microformats site (which is a perfect example of the way
websites these
days should be) then there usual reply is ('Its boring, there isnt much to
it').

I understand it is possible to create some amazing sites with usability and
accessibility 
at the front of the line, but the only people that know this are people like
you and me,
again a client knows nothing and 90% of them don't care.They just want what
they
asked for. If you question why his navigation fonts are very small, his reply
is something 
like ("becuase i need to fit them all on the one line so it dont look like
the navigation
is taking focus") and you cant really argue the point, because they dont tend
to listen.

I dont know what clients others have worked with, ive worked with some right
nasty 
ones, they tell the designer onthe other end of the office how they want it,
if you attempt
to pick at it, they tell you there going to go elsewere, no i cant argue, ill
get the sack.

Tis why i said, if there was a law the client would have no choice. 



On 8/15/07, Jixor - Stephen I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

If it has poor usability its actually bad design, because design isn't just
visual style.

If visual style wins out over usability then its ALWAYS BAD DESIGN.

There is no way around it... Unless this is some highly specialized site like
a quirky flash game or something else that we are not concerned with here.

If you can't work usability into the visual style that you have in mind then
you need to step back and re-think the way you work.

Accessibility shares many aspects with usability because not all
accessibility concerns regard markup and features for highly impaired users.
However generally for most accessibility guidelines following them will
improve usability for your average user too.



James Jeffery wrote: 

Good Evening.

Does Or Should Design Out-Weight Usability and/or Accessibility?

Ive been faced with a number of situations during development on a number of
projects
that has forced me make a choice you have all probably had to make
Usability/Accessibility
over design.

I know Usability and Accessibility are very different subjects, but they are
both just as
important. The users experience should be a good one, its sort of like a shop
keeper or 
store manager, he has to make sure both non-disabled and disabled shoppers
are happy
when shopping, otherwise they wont come back. The shop keeper also would have
to
try to make a disabled persons shopping trip a good one, because after all,
disabled 
shoppers deserve the same access as non-disabled shoppers.

Bringing it back to web development, personally i think that a disabled user
deserves
to browse the internet with the same level of support and access as non
disabled 
users.

And back to the question, should design come before Usability/Accessibility?

Sometimes you can do both, such as Image Replacement, or you can offer
visually
impaired users a version of your site with high contrasting colors. But there
are times 
when designers and developers do things either without thinking about
disabled users
or thinking 'Stuff them, i want my hi-end graphical interface on my site' or 
'Stuff them, i have no time to make it accessible' or even 'Stuff

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[James Jeffery]

Ok i think some people have missed the point a bit, but its probably my
fault.

When i said design, i was referring to the hi-end graphical content. The
sites that are
there to amaze people and go 'how did they do that' which is they way alot
of people
seem to be heading due to convention.

A client generally knows nothing about anything, he tells you what he wants
and
expects the result. This is what im talking about. The clients see sites
with some
eye candy, and want something 'better' than that. If you give them a site
that looks
like, say the microformats site (which is a perfect example of the way
websites these
days should be) then there usual reply is ('Its boring, there isnt much to
it').

I understand it is possible to create some amazing sites with usability and
accessibility
at the front of the line, but the only people that know this are people like
you and me,
again a client knows nothing and 90% of them don't care.They just want what
they
asked for. If you question why his navigation fonts are very small, his
reply is something
like ("becuase i need to fit them all on the one line so it dont look like
the navigation
is taking focus") and you cant really argue the point, because they dont
tend to listen.

I dont know what clients others have worked with, ive worked with some right
nasty
ones, they tell the designer onthe other end of the office how they want it,
if you attempt
to pick at it, they tell you there going to go elsewere, no i cant argue,
ill get the sack.

Tis why i said, if there was a law the client would have no choice.


On 8/15/07, Jixor - Stephen I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  If it has poor usability its actually bad design, because design isn't
> just visual style.
>
> If visual style wins out over usability then its ALWAYS BAD DESIGN.
>
> There is no way around it... Unless this is some highly specialized site
> like a quirky flash game or something else that we are not concerned with
> here.
>
> If you can't work usability into the visual style that you have in mind
> then you need to step back and re-think the way you work.
>
> Accessibility shares many aspects with usability because not all
> accessibility concerns regard markup and features for highly impaired users.
> However generally for most accessibility guidelines following them will
> improve usability for your average user too.
>
>
>
> James Jeffery wrote:
>
> Good Evening.
>
> Does Or Should Design Out-Weight Usability and/or Accessibility?
>
> Ive been faced with a number of situations during development on a number
> of projects
> that has forced me make a choice you have all probably had to make
> Usability/Accessibility
> over design.
>
> I know Usability and Accessibility are very different subjects, but they
> are both just as
> important. The users experience should be a good one, its sort of like a
> shop keeper or
> store manager, he has to make sure both non-disabled and disabled shoppers
> are happy
> when shopping, otherwise they wont come back. The shop keeper also would
> have to
> try to make a disabled persons shopping trip a good one, because after
> all, disabled
> shoppers deserve the same access as non-disabled shoppers.
>
> Bringing it back to web development, personally i think that a disabled
> user deserves
> to browse the internet with the same level of support and access as non
> disabled
> users.
>
> And back to the question, should design come before
> Usability/Accessibility?
>
> Sometimes you can do both, such as Image Replacement, or you can offer
> visually
> impaired users a version of your site with high contrasting colors. But
> there are times
> when designers and developers do things either without thinking about
> disabled users
> or thinking 'Stuff them, i want my hi-end graphical interface on my site'
> or
> 'Stuff them, i have no time to make it accessible' or even 'Stuff them,
> the fonts need
> to me tiny so my design looks good'.
> There are many more possibilities for a developer/design to not bother or
> not choose
> accessibility first.
>
> My take on all this is basically, if you have to make a choice and there
> is no
> way around it, think about your users first, not yourself and what you
> want, because
> you are not the one using the site.
>
> There is often times when things are just not possible, people insist on
> hacking around
> it, which often causes more problems and needs more hacks. But if
> something cant
> be done, leave it out, and wait.
> In the past, with CSS1 a lot of things were not possible, which later
> became possible
> with newer versions.
>
> Web Standards, Accessibility and Usability needs to be put right at the
> top of the
> list, way before design. Focus on the users and the people, and it will
> help to
> create and bring the internet up to a better standard. Im not sure if
> there is a law
> in every country regarding Accessibility but there needs to be one.
>
> This is just my take on things, but i would love to know what ever

Re: [WSG] Usability & Accessibility Over Design?

[Jixor - Stephen I]

If it has poor usability its actually bad design, because design isn't 
just visual style.


If visual style wins out over usability then its ALWAYS BAD DESIGN.

There is no way around it... Unless this is some highly specialized site 
like a quirky flash game or something else that we are not concerned 
with here.


If you can't work usability into the visual style that you have in mind 
then you need to step back and re-think the way you work.


Accessibility shares many aspects with usability because not all 
accessibility concerns regard markup and features for highly impaired 
users. However generally for most accessibility guidelines following 
them will improve usability for your average user too.




James Jeffery wrote:

Good Evening.

Does Or Should Design Out-Weight Usability and/or Accessibility?

Ive been faced with a number of situations during development on a 
number of projects
that has forced me make a choice you have all probably had to make 
Usability/Accessibility

over design.

I know Usability and Accessibility are very different subjects, but 
they are both just as
important. The users experience should be a good one, its sort of like 
a shop keeper or
store manager, he has to make sure both non-disabled and disabled 
shoppers are happy
when shopping, otherwise they wont come back. The shop keeper also 
would have to
try to make a disabled persons shopping trip a good one, because after 
all, disabled

shoppers deserve the same access as non-disabled shoppers.

Bringing it back to web development, personally i think that a 
disabled user deserves
to browse the internet with the same level of support and access as 
non disabled

users.

And back to the question, should design come before 
Usability/Accessibility?


Sometimes you can do both, such as Image Replacement, or you can offer 
visually
impaired users a version of your site with high contrasting colors. 
But there are times
when designers and developers do things either without thinking about 
disabled users
or thinking 'Stuff them, i want my hi-end graphical interface on my 
site' or
'Stuff them, i have no time to make it accessible' or even 'Stuff 
them, the fonts need

to me tiny so my design looks good'.
There are many more possibilities for a developer/design to not bother 
or not choose

accessibility first.

My take on all this is basically, if you have to make a choice and 
there is no
way around it, think about your users first, not yourself and what you 
want, because

you are not the one using the site.

There is often times when things are just not possible, people insist 
on hacking around
it, which often causes more problems and needs more hacks. But if 
something cant

be done, leave it out, and wait.
In the past, with CSS1 a lot of things were not possible, which later 
became possible

with newer versions.

Web Standards, Accessibility and Usability needs to be put right at 
the top of the
list, way before design. Focus on the users and the people, and it 
will help to
create and bring the internet up to a better standard. Im not sure if 
there is a law

in every country regarding Accessibility but there needs to be one.

This is just my take on things, but i would love to know what everyone 
else thinks.
I'm in the middle of writing an article for a magazine, some views 
from both

ends of the scale would be great. Its an important topic i feel.

Thanks Guys.

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***