RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Please don't send this type of message.
regd
vinodGeoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll fix this soon.thanks,Geoff. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hope Stewart Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 11:10 AM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ Geoff, One problem that I've found in both Firefox Safari is that when I increase the font size the search box and its button disappear from the page. Hope Stewart On 4/8/05 7:18 PM, "Geoff Pack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Hi all,Thanks for all the
comments on the new ABC home page. I did the front-end coding, so I'm responsible for *some* of the issues raised.The resizing thing: I would have also preferred a scalable layout or a stylesheet switch, but the design differences are sufficiently great that I had to build 2 html pages. They are pulling different includes, in a different order for a start. I tested the script pretty extensively, but if you have problems, email me and I'll look into it.The ABC (the New Media department anyway) is moving generally towards fixed-width centered layouts. Again, not my preference.Navigation: The previous drop-down menus didn't test very well, and the click-through stats showed the in-page links were used much more. The new
global nav and the "Explore the ABC" were quite popular.The global nav coding was constrained by the fact that it has to go on all ABC pages as a single include file. Putting the style tag in the include (and so inside the body) was a compromise to get it to work without having to edit code across the whole of the ABC. We are fixing it for the new/recent pages soon. Old pages was will probably stay broken.The Banner: Making it an html image instead of a CSS background was done so the banner appears in CSS impaired browsers and in PDAs where the rest of the page will be unstyled.Font-sizing: Constant source of argument with designers, who always want it too small. Up to now I've been using the body
{font-size:0.76em} trick (most of the recent ABC TV sites for example.) But the differences in IE when browser text size settings become much too great. So I've started using font-size:76% instead, which seems to work better.Accessibility: We haven't paid a lot of attention to it apart from making sure the html is clean/semantic and adding the skip links. we test pretty widely across browsers. Point taken about the missing title attributes, but given the number of links, and the fact they come from some many different people in different program areas, it is probably not going to get fixed.BTW, if there is anything that particularly annoys (or pleases) you, send feedback via the contact form if you want it formally logged. We do
make changes based on feedback we receive. cheers,Geoff Pack Developer, ABC New Media and Digital Services ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** **The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list
getting help**
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
RE: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/)
As a Person with a Disability, I prefer Person/User/Whatever with a Disability. People First Language. Although, I tend to refer to myself as a gimp, but that's really something used within some parts of the wheelchair culture. Wouldn't recommend you use it. :) Christopher M. Kelly, Sr. (GM22) State Farm Insurance Companies - disAbility Support website: http://intranet.opr.statefarm.org/sysdisab/ phone: 309-763-7069 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Web] Access is not about adding wheelchair ramps to existing pages. It's about getting your page right in the first place. This medium was designed to be accessible. If your work isn't accessible, you're doing it wrong... - Owen Briggs, Web and CSS guru, http://www.thenoodleincident.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:54 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/) Hi John, Thanks for the resources - really interesting (and I don't think you're being contrary). Nikki Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales, Web Profit Providers of internet marketing services and accessible ebusiness solutions. Nicola Rae Maxima Consult www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk 0044 (0)1273 476709 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Foliot - WATS.ca Sent: 04 August 2005 13:15 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/) Nicola Rae wrote: Hi, Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the correct terms to use are: In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be 'disabled users'. In the UK - instead of 'physical disabilities' - it should be 'physical impairment'. As I also thought it was users with disabilities. Nikki For What it's Worth Dept About 3 years ago, I received permission to mirror the following Words With Dignity (http://wats.ca/resources/wordswithdignity/35), created by the Active Living Alliance, a NGO here in Canada (http://www.ala.ca/content/home.asp). So, not to be contrary to Nikki, it seems that it may also be a cultural thing, as the ALA suggest Person(s) with a disability. Perhaps their final advice is most relevant: Remember, appropriate terminology changes with the times. If in doubt, ask. Most people with a disability will be more than willing to help you. HTH JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/)
Christopher M Kelly wrote: As a Person with a Disability, I prefer Person/User/Whatever with a Disability. People First Language. I think if anything has come out of this, it's that on this list no one is going to be right when talking generally, because what's right for one person/culture is not right for the next. So I'm sure we will all be tolerant when someone says something that's not politically correct in our own culture, but might be in theirs. But when working on the web, we need to find out what is appropriate for the intended audience and then use it. Perhaps on an international or multicultural site, an explanation of why certain terminology was used might be appropriate given the strong objections some sectors can evidently have about what they are called. -- Vicki Berry DistinctiveWeb http://www.distinctiveweb.com.au ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Hi all,
Thanks for all the comments on the new ABC home page. I did the front-end
coding, so I'm responsible for *some* of the issues raised.
The resizing thing:
I would have also preferred a scalable layout or a stylesheet switch, but the
design differences are sufficiently great that I had to build 2 html pages.
They are pulling different includes, in a different order for a start. I tested
the script pretty extensively, but if you have problems, email me and I'll look
into it.
The ABC (the New Media department anyway) is moving generally towards
fixed-width centered layouts. Again, not my preference.
Navigation:
The previous drop-down menus didn't test very well, and the click-through stats
showed the in-page links were used much more. The new global nav and the
Explore the ABC were quite popular.
The global nav coding was constrained by the fact that it has to go on all ABC
pages as a single include file. Putting the style tag in the include (and so
inside the body) was a compromise to get it to work without having to edit code
across the whole of the ABC. We are fixing it for the new/recent pages soon.
Old pages was will probably stay broken.
The Banner:
Making it an html image instead of a CSS background was done so the banner
appears in CSS impaired browsers and in PDAs where the rest of the page will be
unstyled.
Font-sizing:
Constant source of argument with designers, who always want it too small. Up to
now I've been using the body {font-size:0.76em} trick (most of the recent ABC
TV sites for example.) But the differences in IE when browser text size
settings become much too great. So I've started using font-size:76% instead,
which seems to work better.
Accessibility:
We haven't paid a lot of attention to it apart from making sure the html is
clean/semantic and adding the skip links. we test pretty widely across
browsers. Point taken about the missing title attributes, but given the number
of links, and the fact they come from some many different people in different
program areas, it is probably not going to get fixed.
BTW, if there is anything that particularly annoys (or pleases) you, send
feedback via the contact form if you want it formally logged. We do make
changes based on feedback we receive.
cheers,
Geoff Pack
Developer,
ABC New Media and Digital Services
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/)
Nicola Rae wrote: Hi, Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the correct terms to use are: In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be 'disabled users'. In the UK - instead of 'physical disabilities' - it should be 'physical impairment'. As I also thought it was users with disabilities. Nikki For What it's Worth Dept About 3 years ago, I received permission to mirror the following Words With Dignity (http://wats.ca/resources/wordswithdignity/35), created by the Active Living Alliance, a NGO here in Canada (http://www.ala.ca/content/home.asp). So, not to be contrary to Nikki, it seems that it may also be a cultural thing, as the ALA suggest Person(s) with a disability. Perhaps their final advice is most relevant: Remember, appropriate terminology changes with the times. If in doubt, ask. Most people with a disability will be more than willing to help you. HTH JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/)
Hi John, Thanks for the resources - really interesting (and I don't think you're being contrary). Nikki Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales, Web Profit Providers of internet marketing services and accessible ebusiness solutions. Nicola Rae Maxima Consult www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk 0044 (0)1273 476709 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Foliot - WATS.ca Sent: 04 August 2005 13:15 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Politically Correct Terminology (was RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/) Nicola Rae wrote: Hi, Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the correct terms to use are: In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be 'disabled users'. In the UK - instead of 'physical disabilities' - it should be 'physical impairment'. As I also thought it was users with disabilities. Nikki For What it's Worth Dept About 3 years ago, I received permission to mirror the following Words With Dignity (http://wats.ca/resources/wordswithdignity/35), created by the Active Living Alliance, a NGO here in Canada (http://www.ala.ca/content/home.asp). So, not to be contrary to Nikki, it seems that it may also be a cultural thing, as the ALA suggest Person(s) with a disability. Perhaps their final advice is most relevant: Remember, appropriate terminology changes with the times. If in doubt, ask. Most people with a disability will be more than willing to help you. HTH JF -- John Foliot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca Web Accessibility Testing and Services http://www.wats.ca Phone: 1-613-482-7053 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Geoff,
One problem that I've found in both Firefox Safari is that when I increase
the font size the search box and its button disappear from the page.
Hope Stewart
On 4/8/05 7:18 PM, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for all the comments on the new ABC home page. I did the front-end
coding, so I'm responsible for *some* of the issues raised.
The resizing thing:
I would have also preferred a scalable layout or a stylesheet switch, but the
design differences are sufficiently great that I had to build 2 html pages.
They are pulling different includes, in a different order for a start. I
tested the script pretty extensively, but if you have problems, email me and
I'll look into it.
The ABC (the New Media department anyway) is moving generally towards
fixed-width centered layouts. Again, not my preference.
Navigation:
The previous drop-down menus didn't test very well, and the click-through
stats showed the in-page links were used much more. The new global nav and the
Explore the ABC were quite popular.
The global nav coding was constrained by the fact that it has to go on all ABC
pages as a single include file. Putting the style tag in the include (and so
inside the body) was a compromise to get it to work without having to edit
code across the whole of the ABC. We are fixing it for the new/recent pages
soon. Old pages was will probably stay broken.
The Banner:
Making it an html image instead of a CSS background was done so the banner
appears in CSS impaired browsers and in PDAs where the rest of the page will
be unstyled.
Font-sizing:
Constant source of argument with designers, who always want it too small. Up
to now I've been using the body {font-size:0.76em} trick (most of the recent
ABC TV sites for example.) But the differences in IE when browser text size
settings become much too great. So I've started using font-size:76% instead,
which seems to work better.
Accessibility:
We haven't paid a lot of attention to it apart from making sure the html is
clean/semantic and adding the skip links. we test pretty widely across
browsers. Point taken about the missing title attributes, but given the number
of links, and the fact they come from some many different people in different
program areas, it is probably not going to get fixed.
BTW, if there is anything that particularly annoys (or pleases) you, send
feedback via the contact form if you want it formally logged. We do make
changes based on feedback we receive.
cheers,
Geoff Pack
Developer,
ABC New Media and Digital Services
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
I'll fix this soon.
thanks,
Geoff.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Hope Stewart
Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 11:10 AM
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Geoff,
One problem that I've found in both Firefox Safari is that
when I increase
the font size the search box and its button disappear from the page.
Hope Stewart
On 4/8/05 7:18 PM, Geoff Pack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for all the comments on the new ABC home page. I did
the front-end
coding, so I'm responsible for *some* of the issues raised.
The resizing thing:
I would have also preferred a scalable layout or a
stylesheet switch, but the
design differences are sufficiently great that I had to
build 2 html pages.
They are pulling different includes, in a different order
for a start. I
tested the script pretty extensively, but if you have
problems, email me and
I'll look into it.
The ABC (the New Media department anyway) is moving
generally towards
fixed-width centered layouts. Again, not my preference.
Navigation:
The previous drop-down menus didn't test very well, and the
click-through
stats showed the in-page links were used much more. The new
global nav and the
Explore the ABC were quite popular.
The global nav coding was constrained by the fact that it
has to go on all ABC
pages as a single include file. Putting the style tag in
the include (and so
inside the body) was a compromise to get it to work without
having to edit
code across the whole of the ABC. We are fixing it for the
new/recent pages
soon. Old pages was will probably stay broken.
The Banner:
Making it an html image instead of a CSS background was
done so the banner
appears in CSS impaired browsers and in PDAs where the rest
of the page will
be unstyled.
Font-sizing:
Constant source of argument with designers, who always want
it too small. Up
to now I've been using the body {font-size:0.76em} trick
(most of the recent
ABC TV sites for example.) But the differences in IE when
browser text size
settings become much too great. So I've started using
font-size:76% instead,
which seems to work better.
Accessibility:
We haven't paid a lot of attention to it apart from making
sure the html is
clean/semantic and adding the skip links. we test pretty
widely across
browsers. Point taken about the missing title attributes,
but given the number
of links, and the fact they come from some many different
people in different
program areas, it is probably not going to get fixed.
BTW, if there is anything that particularly annoys (or
pleases) you, send
feedback via the contact form if you want it formally
logged. We do make
changes based on feedback we receive.
cheers,
Geoff Pack
Developer,
ABC New Media and Digital Services
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
[WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
I've been waiting for one of the Australian members of the mailing list to comment on the new look/code for http://abc.net.au/ so I might as well raise the issue myself. I personally had nothing to do with the design, code or any other aspect of it (apart from being involved in a very broad consultative process), but I'd be interested in a WSG perspective. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 8333 3488 Developer, ABC Kids Onlinehttp://www.abc.net.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 9:35 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ For some reason - the layout is quite different between IE and Firefox. Looks the same to me in both browsers. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
I found the site fairly nice. I thought there was a nice use of white space. There looks like a stray in the headlines. I was surprised by the use of small tags. Were those deprecated or are they viable? The orange headlines on orange background is a bit low contrast. I like the blue center channel. My attention went to it quickly. I also noticed an a name=""/a next to a header with an id. I'm assuming it is just some legacy code. I think the number of nested divs could be reduced to clean up the code, but otherwise I think it is a valiant effort. Ted From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary Menzel Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:35 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ For some reason - the layout is quite different between IE and Firefox. The Firefox layout seems to be 1024x768 based. The IE one seems to be based on an 800 width. This impacts the IE experience by providing missing or cropped images instead of the full ones (again part of the design) and layout of the Radio, Television, Broadband is not as appealing on the IE version. And there are actually different articles being displayed below that (even after a refresh of both browsers). I dont understand why this would need to be done like this unless there was some non-agnostic browser policy at work. And you know people - if it's the Government they like to manufacture conspiracies. However, as far as standards are concerned. All DIV/UL based - not a table in sight. This is good. But most of the links on the page dont have a title attribute. This would potentially score low marks for accessibility. Regards, Gary Menzel On 8/4/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been waiting for one of the Australian members of the mailing list to comment on the new look/code for http://abc.net.au/ so I might as well raise the issue myself. I personally had nothing to do with the design, code or any other aspect of it (apart from being involved in a very broad consultative process), but I'd be interested in a WSG perspective. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 8333 3488 Developer, ABC Kids Onlinehttp://www.abc.net.au/ ** The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
John, I've been waiting for one of the Australian members of the mailing list to comment on the new look/code for http://abc.net.au/ so I might as well raise the issue myself. I personally had nothing to do with the design, code or any other aspect of it (apart from being involved in a very broad consultative process), but I'd be interested in a WSG perspective. yeah, we have been picking this one apart for a few weeks over here at news.com.au! Looks good all up. I like the initial design and it seems to break down really well with styles off so some good thought has gone into the layout and coding which is good to see. Noticed you are using relative font sizing which is something we are trying to push here so good to see it working well on such an information heavy site. One thing I notice is the lack of consistency of the 'cover' page from any page you get to through a link. It seems to me this may be beyond your control as they seem to be a bunch of different mini-sites, but would have been great to carry that look and feel throughout the whole site to maintain consistency. This also carries with the 800_html version. It is a useful feature, but again only really sticks with the first page and then does not carry over to the other pages. nice work! scott gledhill ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
not to me - want screenshots? IN IE the homepage actually defaults to http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm and in FF to http://abc.net.au/ I thought all those nasty browser-sniffing days were over -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:46 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 9:35 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ For some reason - the layout is quite different between IE and Firefox. Looks the same to me in both browsers. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
On 8/4/05, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very glad that there aren't any drop down menus (I am happy to say these are an abomination on principle and should be avoided like the plague) Hi John I want to convince people not to have drop down on some of our sites at work... I am looking for some good reasons not to have them... We have some on our current site and it looks like (from the web stats) that people are actually using them a lot any comments? cheers Frederic ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
After a quick view I've got to say I think it's pretty good... bit of sniffing on the front page for resolution... skip links... alternative formats... good meta. Visually, it's a solid, clear three (or four) column display. I'm not a fan of portal type sites as they tend to be link heavy and lacking in informative pathways (i.e what am I'm supposed to do to get what I want, and is it here?) but generally the link labels here are pretty good. Shame the graphic about the redesign has no alt content but over all job well done. kind regards Terrence Wood. On 4 Aug 2005, at 10:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been waiting for one of the Australian members of the mailing list to comment on the new look/code for http://abc.net.au/ so I might as well raise the issue myself. I personally had nothing to do with the design, code or any other aspect of it (apart from being involved in a very broad consultative process), but I'd be interested in a WSG perspective. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:46 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ From: Gary Menzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For some reason - the layout is quite different between IE and Firefox. Looks the same to me in both browsers. -Original Message- From: Paul Bennett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 9:54 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ not to me - want screenshots? IN IE the homepage actually defaults to http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm and in FF to http://abc.net.au/ I thought all those nasty browser-sniffing days were over Strange - it doesn't redirect for me. Are you using PC or MAC? I have tried IE 6 and IE 5.5 on the PC and in both cases I go to http://www.abc.net.au, not http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
small is valid in HTML4.01 On 4 Aug 2005, at 11:47 AM, Drake, Ted C. wrote: I found the site fairly nice. I thought there was a nice use of white space. There looks like a stray in the headlines. I was surprised by the use of small tags. Were those deprecated or are they viable? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
it's not browser sniffing it's resolution sniffing, and it it browser independent. Browser sniffing is bad becuase it breaks stuff. Enhancing things based on browser capabilities (in this case how much content fits in the viewport) is OK, most scripting relies on it. The important thing is that the site site works without scripting. Does it matter if it looks the exactly the same in a particular browser compared with another? And if so, how do you reconcile that with say, a pda? kind regards Terrence Wood. On 4 Aug 2005, at 11:53 AM, Paul Bennett wrote: not to me - want screenshots? IN IE the homepage actually defaults to http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm and in FF to http://abc.net.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
IE6, Win XP, SP2 Strange - it doesn't redirect for me. Are you using PC or MAC? I have tried IE 6 and IE 5.5 on the PC and in both cases I go to http://www.abc.net.au, not http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
I thought all those nasty browser-sniffing days were over This is all new to me, as I didn't work on the project. If you look at the .js files, it's redirecting, not necessarily on browser version, but on window size, sometimes *combined* with browser version. Have You Validated Your Code? John Horner(+612 / 02) 8333 3488 Developer, ABC Kids Onlinehttp://www.abc.net.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Frederic, I want to convince people not to have drop down on some of our sites at work... I am looking for some good reasons not to have them... We have some on our current site and it looks like (from the web stats) that people are actually using them a lot Thanks for the opportunity for letting me sound off on one of my favourite subject - Russ is now running for the corner (a quick aside, Russ and I just gave a series of workshops round Australia, and this came up once or twice, My firm views were noted. I have lots of firm views.). OK, let's start with the basic UI principles. A menu is a set of verbs, for doing actions. Navigation menus are a set of nouns for choosing content. So its akin to using a radio button in place of a checkbox they are designed for two different uses. Secondly - while menus on the OSs are designed so that traversing diagonally to a submenu will not close that submenu, JS submenus (and CSS ones too) almost invariably close unless you enter directly from the entry in the main menu relevant to them - this is why they are difficult for most users and essentially impossible for users without really good fine motor skills to access. So, 1. they break the UI guidelines on all platforms that have been in pace for over two decades for menus 2. they have serious usability issues 3. they have serious accessiiblity issues A further Usability issue is that by using them, we tend to hide contextual information about where we are in a site - we tend to know which major section we are in, but not the subsection within that section. In non trivial sites, this a major issue. Why do people use them then? I think their popularity is a symptom of style over substance, which drives a lot of web design - The image replacement techniques, misuse of flash (rarely is it used well, and even when it is used well, it tends to be used for everything (text and still graphics as well as interactive stuff) rather than jsut for what it does well). Just my not so humble appearance. John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Browser sniffing, resolution sniffing - same difference to me. It leads to fractured site design and multiple pages / scripts doing one thing. I'm on 1280 x 1024 and so wondered whay I got the 800 x 600 page. Turns out my browser fired up at just under 1024 x 768 and I was lumped into the less than 1024 x 768 bracket. I can understand this as it would be a challenge to fit 4 columns across an 800 x 600 screen and still have things readable. What would be a little nicer is if the browser was served a slightly amended stylesheet rather than needing a redirect to a 'special' page (thus giving developers another home page version to maintain.) Ironically, with JavaScript disabled an 800x600 viewport is served the 1024x768 homepage, thus destroying the whole 'lowest common denominator' thing. Terrence, I would reconcile it with a PDA (mobile browser) by understanding that that browser will either strip out all semblance of style and layout from my page (as in the majority of version 1 mobile browsers), or that I MAY be able to serve it a mobile stylesheet (support is not great). What I WOULD NOT do is sniff for mobile devices and create YET ANOTHER home page for them. Standards people, standards - leave the rendering to the device, PLEASE don't go back to the bad old days of creating special pages for this resolution, that resolution, this device, that device. This site has done a good job of that by using standards compliant code, and the seperate homepage is simply a nod to the fact that some users are still using that resolution. Yes, it could have been done better but so could a lot of things I do every day -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terrence Wood Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:22 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Terrence Wood Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ it's not browser sniffing it's resolution sniffing, and it it browser independent. Browser sniffing is bad becuase it breaks stuff. Enhancing things based on browser capabilities (in this case how much content fits in the viewport) is OK, most scripting relies on it. The important thing is that the site site works without scripting. Does it matter if it looks the exactly the same in a particular browser compared with another? And if so, how do you reconcile that with say, a pda? kind regards Terrence Wood. On 4 Aug 2005, at 11:53 AM, Paul Bennett wrote: not to me - want screenshots? IN IE the homepage actually defaults to http://abc.net.au/default_800.htm and in FF to http://abc.net.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
thanks how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is using a mix of drop down menu and apparent second level navigation. It could be seen as a solution to make everyone happy!? f On 8/4/05, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frederic, I want to convince people not to have drop down on some of our sites at work... I am looking for some good reasons not to have them... We have some on our current site and it looks like (from the web stats) that people are actually using them a lot Thanks for the opportunity for letting me sound off on one of my favourite subject - Russ is now running for the corner (a quick aside, Russ and I just gave a series of workshops round Australia, and this came up once or twice, My firm views were noted. I have lots of firm views.). OK, let's start with the basic UI principles. A menu is a set of verbs, for doing actions. Navigation menus are a set of nouns for choosing content. So its akin to using a radio button in place of a checkbox they are designed for two different uses. Secondly - while menus on the OSs are designed so that traversing diagonally to a submenu will not close that submenu, JS submenus (and CSS ones too) almost invariably close unless you enter directly from the entry in the main menu relevant to them - this is why they are difficult for most users and essentially impossible for users without really good fine motor skills to access. So, 1. they break the UI guidelines on all platforms that have been in pace for over two decades for menus 2. they have serious usability issues 3. they have serious accessiiblity issues A further Usability issue is that by using them, we tend to hide contextual information about where we are in a site - we tend to know which major section we are in, but not the subsection within that section. In non trivial sites, this a major issue. Why do people use them then? I think their popularity is a symptom of style over substance, which drives a lot of web design - The image replacement techniques, misuse of flash (rarely is it used well, and even when it is used well, it tends to be used for everything (text and still graphics as well as interactive stuff) rather than jsut for what it does well). Just my not so humble appearance. John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Web: http://anna.loic.free.fr Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) a href=callto://fredericferySkype/a ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Frederic, how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is using a mix of drop down menu and apparent second level navigation. It could be seen as a solution to make everyone happy!? Its probably straying a little from Web standards directly, onto usability issues, but still within best practices. I would like to see all such menus as dead and buried as the blink element. I have not done extensive user testing on these kinds of menus. However, since the beginning of time, in app development, the recommendation has always been to use submenus carefully and sparingly, if in doubt, don't. While these are superficially analogous to main menus, I think in reality they are more like sub menus, so this well tested observation is worth keeping in mind. In the case of this site, I'd be inclined to ditch the drop downs, and have their contents on the pages you visit when you click What's on, and so on. Which is what actually happens, but confusingly, when you get to these pages, you get both. What happens if a user does a find (cmd-f) for some text that is in one of the drop downs? I note that in your site a lot of it is repeated, but otherwise, bnothing shows up. Users often use this technique for finding something - another good reason to avoid Image Replacement techniques also. Has anyone done any user testing on drop downs? Tania maybe? I'd be interested to know wether users use these, or avoid them like the plague - or don;t even notice them, afterall, how are we supposed to know they are flyout or dropdown menus? HTH john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
just a quite note, ourbrisbane.com is not my site i am just a user, living there now! Has anyone done any user testing on drop downs? Tania maybe? yes, would be interesting On 8/4/05, John Allsopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frederic, how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is using a mix of drop down menu and apparent second level navigation. It could be seen as a solution to make everyone happy!? Its probably straying a little from Web standards directly, onto usability issues, but still within best practices. I would like to see all such menus as dead and buried as the blink element. I have not done extensive user testing on these kinds of menus. However, since the beginning of time, in app development, the recommendation has always been to use submenus carefully and sparingly, if in doubt, don't. While these are superficially analogous to main menus, I think in reality they are more like sub menus, so this well tested observation is worth keeping in mind. In the case of this site, I'd be inclined to ditch the drop downs, and have their contents on the pages you visit when you click What's on, and so on. Which is what actually happens, but confusingly, when you get to these pages, you get both. What happens if a user does a find (cmd-f) for some text that is in one of the drop downs? I note that in your site a lot of it is repeated, but otherwise, bnothing shows up. Users often use this technique for finding something - another good reason to avoid Image Replacement techniques also. Has anyone done any user testing on drop downs? Tania maybe? I'd be interested to know wether users use these, or avoid them like the plague - or don;t even notice them, afterall, how are we supposed to know they are flyout or dropdown menus? HTH john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Web: http://anna.loic.free.fr Windows Messenger: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) a href=callto://fredericferySkype/a ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
I have done usability testing on both drop-down and flyout menus. I have never, and would never, recommend sideways flyout navigation. It is just too difficult for people, even with normal mobility, to manipulate. And even worse, people blame themselves for not being able to use them, thus feeling less empowered about using computers. Yuck, horrid! I have seen good results from dropdown navigation though. Providing it is implemented in a way that is relatively 'sticky', and the box is wide enough, people can generally manipulate these quite easily. I have done user research for a number of websites and intranets where users really like them! Although I still avoid them (I think they are often used as a crutch for poor information architecture), there are some advantages to using them. They do allow people to gain a better understanding of what is in a section, beyond what can be described in a word or two. This reduces the need for a lot of forward and backward clicking and the resulting frustration. Donna On 4 Aug 2005 at 12:15, John Allsopp wrote: Has anyone done any user testing on drop downs? Tania maybe? I'd be interested to know wether users use these, or avoid them like the plague - or don;t even notice them, afterall, how are we supposed to know they are flyout or dropdown menus? HTH john John Allsopp -- Donna Maurer Maadmob Interaction Design e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: http://maadmob.com.au/ blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/ AOL IM: maadmob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
-Original Message- From: John Allsopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 12:15 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Tania Lang Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ Frederic, how would you rate http://www.ourbrisbane.com/ which is using a mix of drop down menu and apparent second level navigation. It could be seen as a solution to make everyone happy!? Has anyone done any user testing on drop downs? Tania maybe? I'd be interested to know wether users use these, or avoid them like the plague - or don;t even notice them, afterall, how are we supposed to know they are flyout or dropdown menus? Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities asked for dropdowns to be added. So here we have got the problem that dropdowns might be hard for users with physical disabilities to use and they might stuff up screen readers if implemented incorrectly, but they can be helpful for users that are visually oriented or users that require dropdowns as an assistance to understand the site's structure. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
. I'm confused. Is it drop downs or flyouts that are the problem (or both)? As a web development student, what resources are available for me to read to help me better understand this issue? cheers Craig FattyBoombah Rippon Brisbane, Australia -Original Message- From: Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Thanks for the insight Donna. Nothing like actual testing as opposed to my usual hand waving! Although I still avoid them (I think they are often used as a crutch for poor information architecture), there are some advantages to using them. They do allow people to gain a better understanding of what is in a section, beyond what can be described in a word or two. This reduces the need for a lot of forward and backward clicking and the resulting frustration. We use them a little like this at our store https://order.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store.cgi?storeID=WC4; The links at the top right (for those not using screen readers, otherwise links under the heading FAQ) when rolled over show furthewr info below. This is precisly because once someone has got to the part where they buy, the last thin you want them to do is go anywhere if they have a question :-) But it isn't for navigation! john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Did you test with people without disabilities? I'm wondering as I could interpret this as meaning that the navigation groupings may not have been clear and people wanted the additional information. But this would happen for all groups... Donna On 4 Aug 2005 at 12:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote: Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities asked for dropdowns to be added. So here we have got the problem that dropdowns might be hard for users with physical disabilities to use and they might stuff up screen readers if implemented incorrectly, but they can be helpful for users that are visually oriented or users that require dropdowns as an assistance to understand the site's structure. -- Donna Maurer Maadmob Interaction Design e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: http://maadmob.com.au/ blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/ AOL IM: maadmob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Craig, . I'm confused. Is it drop downs or flyouts that are the problem (or both)? the way I read Donna's post was (editorializing, not Donnas words) 1. flyouts dire, avoid at all cost 2. drop downs don;' have quite the same usability concerns, or at least not tot eh same extent, but be very careful. As a web development student, what resources are available for me to read to help me better understand this issue? I'v not read anything in great detail, but others certainly may have HTH a little john John Allsopp style master :: css editor :: http://westciv.com/style_master support forum :: http://support.westciv.com blog :: dog or higher :: http://blogs.westciv.com/dog_or_higher Web Essentials web development conference http://we05.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
On 4 Aug 2005, at 2:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities asked for dropdowns to be added. I wonder why people with hearing disabilities requested dropdowns, is this result (statistically) valid, or just observed within your group? btw, I'm pretty sure the correct term to use users with disabilities. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
-Original Message- On 4 Aug 2005 at 12:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote: Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities asked for dropdowns to be added. From: Donna Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 1:16 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ Did you test with people without disabilities? I'm wondering as I could interpret this as meaning that the navigation groupings may not have been clear and people wanted the additional information. But this would happen for all groups... Actually no, that particular site we only tested with disabled people, although I have to add the range of impairments was extremely wide, so I don't think we would have found many other results had we tested people without disabilities. I agree with you that the navigation groupings might have added to the users' need for additional information. But the users that did request the dropdowns mentioned following reasons: - Reduce mouse-clicks (especially on machines with slow Internet connection) - Get a quick, detailed overview of the content in all sections - Less content to read through The last point was in particular valuable for deaf users and users with reading impairment. As the website we tested had a lot of content on it, some users felt uncomortable with pages of long content. We did recommend against the dropdowns in the end, as this was only a smaller proportion of the overall users that requested this functionality and it probably would have caused problems for a couple of other users. However it was interesting to see that, depending on the angle you take on accessibility, dropdowns can certainly improve the usability of a website for some groups. Sorry, currently I cannot mention the name of the site for confidentiality reasons. Cheers, Andreas. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
-Original Message- From: Terrence Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 1:43 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Terrence Wood Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ On 4 Aug 2005, at 2:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities asked for dropdowns to be added. I wonder why people with hearing disabilities requested dropdowns, is this result (statistically) valid, or just observed within your group? Two of the users explained it to me: Some people that were born with a hearing impairment may have had, due to their circumstances, more difficulties in the school environment. So, as I was told, it is not uncommon to find users that were born with a hearing impairment, that have got reading and writing difficulties. This is unrelated to any reading impairment, but simply a side-effect of the school system they went through. Now this is not meant to be a generalisation, I am just repeating what I was told by two of the users who were in that particular situation. But it sounded quite logical to me. So, as a result of this, those particular participants were much more visually oriented than the average user. Instead of reading long paragraphs of text, they preferred imagery, illustrations and simple ways to get to their information. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
On 4 Aug 2005 at 13:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote: Actually no, that particular site we only tested with disabled people, although I have to add the range of impairments was extremely wide, so I don't think we would have found many other results had we tested people without disabilities. I agree with you that the navigation groupings might have added to the users' need for additional information. But the users that did request the dropdowns mentioned following reasons: - Reduce mouse-clicks (especially on machines with slow Internet connection) - Get a quick, detailed overview of the content in all sections - Less content to read through The last point was in particular valuable for deaf users and users with reading impairment. As the website we tested had a lot of content on it, some users felt uncomortable with pages of long content. That's interesting. Except for the example you gave (in a later post about deafness and the resulting learning difficulties) I wouldn't like to infer a general link between hearing impairment and content length. Your learnings entirely reflect my experiences usability testing with people without an impairment, so I'd take the comments as general usability issues, not particular issues for people with a hearing impairment. Donna -- Donna Maurer Maadmob Interaction Design e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: http://maadmob.com.au/ blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/ AOL IM: maadmob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
-Original Message- From: Donna Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:15 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ On 4 Aug 2005 at 13:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote: Your learnings entirely reflect my experiences usability testing with people without an impairment, so I'd take the comments as general usability issues, not particular issues for people with a hearing impairment. Oh, I completely agree. I guess we can say that dropdowns can improve the usability of a website for a certain group of people. As a general question though (independent to any kinds of impairment): are dropdowns especially useful for people that are more visual? If we think about it, dropdowns are very much a different form of sitemap. And one of the main reasons we create sitemaps is to provide a visual presentation of the Information Architecture. Something that would be a very interesting test: put a group of designers onto a website and a group of engineers. What navigation items do each of them use? Will the designers go for the dropdown menus and sitemap, while the engineers go for the search engine or standard navigation? :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ (Deafness and Con tent Length)
This is a really interesting thread and I have to say I've been waiting years for something solid on deafness and accessibility and usability to show it's pretty face here :) I'd like to expand on something Andreas wrote about deafness and content length. I completely agree with your comments and would like to say that as much as Content Length is a usability issue for all users, it is definitely an accessibility issue for many Deaf and hearing impaired (HI) users (as well as other groups). I am not speaking on behalf of any deaf users nor am I generalising that this applies to all deaf/HI users; the following is just based on my experience working in the deaf community. The link between deafness/usability/accessibility/content length is (as Andreas wrote) largely based on educational experiences. This is for two reasons: 1) Sign language is not a gestural version of English. The grammar and syntax is completely different. Native Auslan (Australian sign language) users have English as a second Language. This is one reason why lengthy content is a usability/accessibility issue; Users have to wade through content presented in their second language and pick out key words. 2) For a long time, many deaf students were removed from class to attend speech classes. This meant that they often missed fundemental lessons on English, math, science, etc while being 'taught' how to say something they couldn't hear. Another reason why content may be difficult to comprehend in lengthy passages, and why point form is excellent. 3) Sign language does not contain any where near as many synonyms as english, so often the same sign will be used for many different english words. There are other reasons too, but I think this will give you some idea. I guess the main point to get from this is that Sign language (Auslan, not signed English, is not based on English and does not follow the same grammar as English. So while content length is a usability issue for a broad range of users, it can be an accessibility issue for Deaf/HI users for a similar though different reason. Hope that has been of some interest ;) lisa -Original Message- From: Donna Maurer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:15 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ On 4 Aug 2005 at 13:55, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Me wrote: But the users that did request the dropdowns mentioned following reasons: - Reduce mouse-clicks (especially on machines with slow Internet connection) - Get a quick, detailed overview of the content in all sections - Less content to read through The last point was in particular valuable for deaf users and users with reading impairment. As the website we tested had a lot of content on it, some users felt uncomortable with pages of long content. That's interesting. Except for the example you gave (in a later post about deafness and the resulting learning difficulties) I wouldn't like to infer a general link between hearing impairment and content length. Your learnings entirely reflect my experiences usability testing with people without an impairment, so I'd take the comments as general usability issues, not particular issues for people with a hearing impairment. Donna -- Donna Maurer Maadmob Interaction Design e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] work: http://maadmob.com.au/ blog: http://maadmob.net/donna/blog/ AOL IM: maadmob ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ (Deafness and Con tent Length)
-Original Message- From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:55 PM To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ (Deafness and Con tent Length) This is a really interesting thread and I have to say I've been waiting years for something solid on deafness and accessibility and usability to show it's pretty face here :) Finally something more interesting than the constant discussion on screenreader issues. Thanks for the clarification, Lisa. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ (Deafness and Con tent Length)
Sorry that should have said this is for a FEW reasons. -Original Message- From: Herrod, Lisa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2005 2:55 PM To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org' Subject: RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ (Deafness and Con tent Length) The link between deafness/usability/accessibility/content length is (as Andreas wrote) largely based on educational experiences. This is for two reasons: ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/
Hi, Just to chip in, I am writing a couple of articles for GAWDS (guild of Accessible Web Designers) and have it on authority from them that the correct terms to use are: In the UK - instead of 'users with disabilities' - it should be 'disabled users'. In the UK - instead of 'physical disabilities' - it should be 'physical impairment'. As I also thought it was users with disabilities. Nikki Maxima Consult -- Web Access, Web Sales, Web Profit Providers of internet marketing services and accessible ebusiness solutions. Nicola Rae Maxima Consult www.webaccessforeveryone.co.uk 0044 (0)1273 476709 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terrence Wood Sent: 04 August 2005 04:43 To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Cc: Terrence Wood Subject: Re: [WSG] New front page for http://abc.net.au/ On 4 Aug 2005, at 2:55 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: Actually we have done some usability testing with a range of disabled users recently. The site we tested did not have any dropdowns, however in particular users with hearing disabilities and cognitive disabilities asked for dropdowns to be added. I wonder why people with hearing disabilities requested dropdowns, is this result (statistically) valid, or just observed within your group? btw, I'm pretty sure the correct term to use users with disabilities. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
