How do they do it? Professional looking sites...

[WebcastMaker]

Dude, it can be cool, but this actually hurts my eyes to read, and I've
got top-notch vision.
What is fun is screwing up the menu at top - rearrange all the items.

Good or bad, cool or not cool, it is up to the visitor. That this site
is a perfect example about why it is ok to break the rules sometimes.
You may find your little niche on the web that likes this kind of stuff.
And that little niche on the web might be all you need to have a
completely successful business.

It is not always about being able to get your message across to everyone
on the web. Most of the time it is, but not always. Sometimes, like
this site, it is about the presentation.

YMMV

 

[Jeffrey Silverman]

I meant the grey checkerboard that's up for an age while it loads.

I don't know much Flash, but I do know you don't need to be staring at
a blank screen at this point.

Its not a Flash site. Not Macromedia Flash, at any rate. All Javascript.

 

[Augustus]

Outsourcing, huh?

For the most part I do try to use students from the local schools first, but
I do explore other sources depending on needs... but then I am in Canada and
do work for the US Gov't at times, so I am already an outsource myself which
makes it hard for me to be against outsourcing

 

[Jan Faerber]

It is. It's pretty good. I installed it for someone at work.

Somehow I don't have any good experiences with GIMP on WinME.
Something was missing at the installation.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Its not a Flash site. Not Macromedia Flash, at any rate. All Javascript.

Good grief ! You're right !

So why's it so dog-slow to initially load ? It can't _all_ be pulling
in the .js docs surely ?

 

[Andy Dingley]

Somehow I don't have any good experiences with GIMP on WinME.

Were you _expecting_ a good experience on WinME ?

 

[Scott Dunaway]

I thought it was a very well made site. Yes, the text on the buttons
was a tad too small but I liked it enough that I spent several hours
there checking things out.

Scott D.

 

[rf]

Scott Dunaway wrote, without quoting anything at all from any prior post:

I thought it was a very well made site.

What site? Where? Are you replying to somebody?

<sifts through contents of thread, marrying up this post with whatever it
must be in reply to>

Oh you mean http://www.ozones.com

Phew, I'm glad we sorted that out.

Yes, the text on the buttons
was a tad too small but I liked it enough that I spent several hours
there checking things out.

Did you? Good. I glanced at it myself for a few minutes.

Yes the site is very pretty. I actually like the concept and the quite nice
flash (I assume it is). If the navigation buttons were actually readable I
might well say "good job".

However let your imagination run loose for a minute.

You have mild motor neurone syndrome. You are quite capable of dressing
yourself and doing other such things as walking down to the corner pub for a
beer or using a keyboard with that special strap on the arm thingy that
somebody has crafted for you.

You can *not*, however, use a mouse.

This site is totally unusable for you. It does not work without a mouse. It
does not respond to any keyboard scrolling functions, at all. Even the
standard "tab to the next link" is broken.

This site is seriously discriminating against you.

If this were a commercial site hosted in Australia it would be in
contravention of certain legislation regarding web sites. That is, you could
cause the government to issue the owners of the site a "fix it or we will
fine you" order. You could claim compensation for the sites lack of
usability.

This has happened.

The subject of this thread includes the words "professional looking sites".
Well, yes, this is a "professional looking site" (font size excepted). It is
most definitely *not*, however, a "professional site". Big difference.

 

[Kyote]

Scott Dunaway wrote, without quoting anything at all from any prior post:


What site? Where? Are you replying to somebody?

<sifts through contents of thread, marrying up this post with whatever it
must be in reply to>

Oh you mean http://www.ozones.com

Phew, I'm glad we sorted that out.

Sorry Mate. But using Agent my reply get's indented under what I'm
replying to. And since I was merely stating my opinion on a web site I
liked, I felt no need to include instructions as to what I was making
my simple vote of appreciation for.

Did you? Good. I glanced at it myself for a few minutes.

Yes the site is very pretty. I actually like the concept and the quite nice
flash (I assume it is). If the navigation buttons were actually readable I
might well say "good job".

However let your imagination run loose for a minute.

You have mild motor neurone syndrome. You are quite capable of dressing
yourself and doing other such things as walking down to the corner pub for a
beer or using a keyboard with that special strap on the arm thingy that
somebody has crafted for you.

You can *not*, however, use a mouse.

This site is totally unusable for you. It does not work without a mouse. It
does not respond to any keyboard scrolling functions, at all. Even the
standard "tab to the next link" is broken.

This site is seriously discriminating against you.

Your wrong. This site isn't 'discriminating against you' just because
the Creator developed it without such an individual in mind. If it's
considered 'Discriminating' just because the creator didn't think
about all the different people that might someday decide to come to
his/her site and make it functional to all of them. Then well over 90%
of the world and it's people would be considered Discriminating.

If this were a commercial site hosted in Australia it would be in
contravention of certain legislation regarding web sites. That is, you could
cause the government to issue the owners of the site a "fix it or we will
fine you" order. You could claim compensation for the sites lack of
usability.

This has happened.

The subject of this thread includes the words "professional looking sites".
Well, yes, this is a "professional looking site" (font size excepted). It is
most definitely *not*, however, a "professional site". Big difference.

I started this thread because I wanted to know how they do
'Professional looking sites' as the subject says. Nothing more. I'm
sorry if my opinion has devastated your life. Since you don't seem to
realize this, you CAN simply skip posts, AND web sites, that you don't
like. We each have our own likes and dislikes. I hope what you said
about Australia is simply rumor. Because anyone that tries to make it
illegal for Others to be independently creative, well, to me that
would be a terrible shame.

 

[Michael Winter]

[snip]

I hope what you said about Australia is simply rumor.

I doubt it. The UK has similar laws, and so does the USA (to a certain
extent). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EU decides to introduce
similar legislation sometime in the future.

Because anyone that tries to make it illegal for Others to be
independently creative, well, to me that would be a terrible shame.

What?! How on Earth does legislation regarding accessibility in any way
prevent creativity? Don't talk nonsense.

Mike

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

[snip]

I hope what you said about Australia is simply rumor.

I doubt it. The UK has similar laws, and so does the USA (to a certain
extent). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EU decides to introduce
similar legislation sometime in the future.

Because anyone that tries to make it illegal for Others to be
independently creative, well, to me that would be a terrible shame.

What?! How on Earth does legislation regarding accessibility in any way
prevent creativity? Don't talk nonsense.

Yet another question from my restless mind:
Why is it that such laws extend to the www only (or do they)? Is every
publisher by law obliged to produce works that are accessible to all
(radioprograms and music media for the deaf, television for the blind,
newspapers, magazines, books, every printed word available in braille
(that alone would be devestating for the forrests because of the amount of
paper it takes to print a book in braille))?

I understand that it is necessary for www publishers of (say) governments
to be sure all their citizens can get access, but make that law apply to
all (or all commercial): that's a bit far stretching, isn't it? Not
entirely fair in my opinion.

 

[Dylan Parry]

I doubt it. The UK has similar laws, and so does the USA (to a certain
extent). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the EU decides to introduce
similar legislation sometime in the future.

Actually, Australia had its Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) before
the UK created theirs. I'm not entirely sure what the Australian one
covers regarding online access, but seeing as I am writing an essay
about it[1] tonight I'll be able to tell you in the morning

______
[1] Disability laws in general, that is. I have currently finished the
UK, ROI and German legislations as examples from the EU, and have read
up on the US and Canada, but I haven't finished reading about Australia
and New Zealand yet

 

[Michael Winter]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:26:48 +0100, Barbara de Zoete

[snip]

Why is it that such laws extend to the www only (or do they)?

As far as the UK is concerned, it goes further than the Web. If I remember
correctly, any entity that provides a service - public and private sector
- must make a reasonable attempt to provide that service to everyone. So
for example, buildings must provide access to wheelchairs, alternative
literature must be available to the partially-sighted, and web sites must
be accessible (generally based on the W3C Accessibility Guidelines).

The key is "reasonable attempt", or words to that effect. A small local
business that doesn't turn a large profit isn't expected to go to the same
lengths as a multinational corporation or the Government.

I'm by no means an authority, though. This is just what I remember at the
moment.

[snip]

Mike

 

[Dylan Parry]

I understand that it is necessary for www publishers of (say)
governments to be sure all their citizens can get access, but make that
law apply to all (or all commercial): that's a bit far stretching,
isn't it? Not entirely fair in my opinion.

Does that mean that you think your local supermarket/clothes shop/public
library shouldn't have to provide access for wheelchairs because it
isn't a government agency?

Besides, why shouldn't all commercial Websites be accessible by disabled
users? It doesn't cost any more to develop an accessible site, and could
make you more money in the future because your market is potentially 20%
larger than it was before!

 

[David Dorward]

Why is it that such laws extend to the www only (or do they)? Is every
publisher by law obliged to produce works that are accessible to all
(radioprograms and music media for the deaf, television for the blind,
newspapers, magazines, books, every printed word available in braille
(that alone would be devestating for the forrests because of the amount of
paper it takes to print a book in braille))?

That's rather the point. It doesn't cost extra to make a website accessible,
it just has to be done right.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Does that mean that you think your local supermarket/clothes shop/public
library shouldn't have to provide access for wheelchairs because it
isn't a government agency?

Well, yes I think they should, but, no, I don't think it is necessary they
print their advertisement material in braille (wouldn't that be five
kilo's of a mess in my mailbox every week, if not more ;-) )

Besides, why shouldn't all commercial Websites be accessible by disabled
users?

I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm wondering why it should be obligatory
by law. That is a different angle.

It doesn't cost any more to develop an accessible site, and could make
you more money in the future because your market is potentially 20%
larger than it was before!

It's their loss. If they find out that they can get to that marketshare
with ease and no extra cost at all, they will. They will without the law
enforcing them to. I think proper information (I'm looking for the word
here; in Dutch: voorlichting. Maybe someone can help and translate? TIA)
is of far greater worth that a law. If organisations start building sites
that are easily accessable for all because the organisation sees the ease
and need, that trade will remain. Whereas if it is enforced on them by
law, every once in a while some public event will spur all involved into
action while all the other fifty weeks of the year noone pays attention.
Who's actually there to enforce anything? How many civil servants will the
government need to check and control the situation?
I don't see this practically working. Good, focussed information (Dutch
voorlichting; <bangs head /> Why don't I know that word in English)
targeted at some leading organisations (whose attitude and doing are
likely to be copied by others) might accomplish all with more ease and
better sustainable.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 21:26:48 +0100, Barbara de Zoete

[snip]

Why is it that such laws extend to the www only (or do they)?

As far as the UK is concerned, it goes further than the Web. If I
remember correctly, any entity that provides a service - public and
private sector - must make a reasonable attempt to provide that service
to everyone. So for example, buildings must provide access to
wheelchairs, alternative literature must be available to the
partially-sighted, and web sites must be accessible (generally based on
the W3C Accessibility Guidelines).

The key is "reasonable attempt", or words to that effect. A small local
business that doesn't turn a large profit isn't expected to go to the
same lengths as a multinational corporation or the Government.

I'm by no means an authority, though. This is just what I remember at
the moment.

I understand this. I was trying to focus on _publishing_ but appearantly I
wasn't very clear for both you and Dylan give me that building access
thing A good thing, but not the subject of my debate.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

That's rather the point. It doesn't cost extra to make a website
accessible,
it just has to be done right.

Nothing is gained or obtained for free, ever. Someone has to get the
proper skill. Then time has to be invested in redoing sites that are there
already. For big companies or large governemental organisations this costs
big time. Talking tons and tons of coins here.

It is only free if your staf already has the skill and you start with a
brand new site. Then your statement 'It doesn't cost extra to make a
website accessible' is perfectly true. But only then.

 

[Dylan Parry]

I think proper information (I'm looking for the
word here; in Dutch: voorlichting. Maybe someone can help and
translate? TIA) is of far greater worth that a law.

Enlightenment. Yes, I agree that people need to be educated as to *why*
it is important for a site to be accessible, but the law makes sure that
regardless of what they feel about the subject that they *must* comply
and sends the message that as a society we deem it unacceptable for a
site to ignore 20% of the population.

 

[Dylan Parry]

Nothing is gained or obtained for free, ever. Someone has to get the
proper skill. Then time has to be invested in redoing sites that are
there already. For big companies or large governemental organisations
this costs big time. Talking tons and tons of coins here.

Think about it this way; These big companies (take a bank for example)
has already had to spend millions of £s refitting their buildings in the
UK to allow for wheelchair access where no access existed before. This
is the law and companies had to comply by the deadline of (I think) some
time last month. It's going to cost them significantly less than those
millions to rebuild their inaccessible Websites.