How do you design a website?

A

Andy Dingley

Bergamot said:
However, I might be inclined to visit them more often if they employed
something like this:
http://reefscape.net/?p=4

Adobe should make that standard for *all* Flash that has any text in it
whatsoever, IMO.

Happy happy joy joy!

I've waited a _long_ time for someone to solve that particular little
problem.
 
B

Bergamot

the said:
from my understanding any site that cannot be read by a screen
reader is breaking the law.

It depends on the country, and what the web site is for or who owns it.

AIUI, in the US accessiblity is only required for government sites, or
businesses/organizations that have government contracts. That doesn't
stop the campaign to apply the same laws to commercial sites, too,
though. Note that Target Corp is in the middle of this battle now. A lot
of people are interested in the outcome of that suit.

In Australia, I believe the law applies to all Aussie sites, be it
government or commercial. Personal sites may be exempt, but I don't know
for sure. The suit against the Sydney Olympics was the driving force for
the Aussie rules.

The UK has their own laws about this, too. I'm not sure if the EU has
decided on an official policy yet. You could go searching and find out.
 
B

Bergamot

Andy said:
Happy happy joy joy!

I've waited a _long_ time for someone to solve that particular little
problem.

We all have. When I first came across that article, I was just blown
away. What a boon to not only accessibility, but usability, too. :)

This needs more advertising, for sure.
 
T

Travis Newbury

the said:
i was under the impression that there are now laws on accessibility re folk
with disabilities ie unable to see, btw can a screenreader read a flash
site? - from my understanding any site that cannot be read by a screen
reader is breaking the law.

I think it is sad that just because there is someone doesn't have legs,
they tell me I can't use mine... (that is a metaphor) And yes, modern
screen readers and properly constructed Flash site do get along.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Jonathan said:
I have seen well done and arty flash sites that do scale! Take a little
creativity and skill but the same can be said of a pure HTML page.

Flash, when done coreclty is not a bad thing. HTML when down
incorrectly is just as bad as bad flash (or java, or javascript etc...)
There
are many horrible, frustrating, nearly unusable commercial site out
there obviously "designed" by the board of directors that haven't a clue
how to use the Web.

No disagreement from me.
The Toyota site is one that spring to mind that I
have seen recently. And there was this on that someone posts here a
while ago about the aquarium in Atlanta I think?

The Atlanta Aquarium site is horrible (last time I looked at it), as
are many sites the use nothing but html
 
T

Travis Newbury

Bergamot said:
Goody for them (yawn). I spend virtually none of my online time at sites
like that, so it's no matter to me.

I do spend a ton of time at such sites. I have seen good ones and bad
ones. I have also seen good and bad all html flexible sites. It is
the development team that makes or breaks a site. NOT the technology
 
B

Bergamot

Travis said:
It is
the development team that makes or breaks a site. NOT the technology

I don't really disagree with that statement. However, Flash is
inherently inaccessible and prone to usability problems, even with a
"good" design team. There is nothing the user can do to overcome
problems experienced with Flash sites.

With HTML, problems can often (not always) be averted by disabling CSS,
JavaScript, etc. Big difference in that the user has some control over
HTML, and none with Flash.
 
T

Travis Newbury

the said:
i was under the impression that there are now laws on accessibility re folk
with disabilities ie unable to see, btw can a screenreader read a flash
site? - from my understanding any site that cannot be read by a screen
reader is breaking the law.

I think it is sad that just because there is someone doesn't have legs,
they tell me I can't use mine... (that is a metaphor) And yes, modern
screen readers and properly constructed Flash site do get along.
 
T

the red dot

Travis Newbury said:
I think it is sad that just because there is someone doesn't have legs,
they tell me I can't use mine... (that is a metaphor) And yes, modern
screen readers and properly constructed Flash site do get along.
ah well dont know much about flash or screenreaders i keep trying to erm get
dragon 9 because ive been told by a user that is very good. i think the law
in the uk (or at least that is what i was told) where i am says sites must
be accessible by all (mind you what about those without computers dont they
have rights?) inc those with disabilities, my screenreader example was just
an example.
 
A

Andy Dingley

Travis said:
Flash, when done coreclty is not a bad thing. HTML when down
incorrectly is just as bad as bad flash (or java, or javascript etc...)

No, not at all.
Really suckily bad HTML still has extractable text. You have to work
enormously hard to lose this little. The default for Flash OTOH, is to
be worse than this.
 
A

Andy Dingley

Travis said:
Flash, when done coreclty is not a bad thing. HTML when down
incorrectly is just as bad as bad flash (or java, or javascript etc...)

No, not at all.
Really suckily bad HTML still has extractable text. You have to work
enormously hard to lose this little. The default for Flash OTOH, is to
be worse than this.
 
E

Ed Seedhouse

Sure it can. The web was originally designed that way and for that
purpose. I include images as content, of course.

And how do you know this? What studies have you done and why do you
think your studies are better than other studies that have shown
otherwise?

Once again, what's your evidence of this? And is it the majority of
visitors you should be catering to or the majority of potential
visitors? Don't you want to have more visitors?

Which is why fixed width sites are basicaly bad. Fluid sites that work
in almost all browsers (including I.E.) are perfectly possible and even
easy if you understand CSS and semantic html coding.

And once again, what's your evidence for this? How can it bring more
money in to purposely lock out people with the very money you want who
happen to be visually impaired? Is their money not valuable to you?
i was under the impression that there are now laws on accessibility re folk
with disabilities ie unable to see, btw can a screenreader read a flash
site? - from my understanding any site that cannot be read by a screen
reader is breaking the law.

There are such laws in various constituencies but they are rarely
heavily enforced. I believe there have been some lawsuits filed against
in the USA big websites by visually disabled people who find they can't
go there. If one of them wins big, money will certainly sing a
different tune.
 
E

Ed Seedhouse

I think it is sad that just because there is someone doesn't have legs,
they tell me I can't use mine... (that is a metaphor) And yes, modern
screen readers and properly constructed Flash site do get along.

They are not telling you you can't use yours. You are telling them that
you don't want their money because they don't have legs.
 
C

Chaddy2222

Travis said:
Where you are wrong is you do not work in or understand in the
entertainment industry (ok that us an assumption, I don't know where
you work, but from your responses I can only assume it is not the
entertainment industry)

I do work in the entertainment industry. (Name drop time now) If you
visit Disney, Cartoon Network, TBS, Snoopdogg, Aerosmith, The Cars,
Run DMC, ABS, CBS, NBC, FOX News, Marriott International, SONY, and 3
of the college bowl sites, you will see my work. I do NOT do their
websites, but I do, do their Flash video. (Not the company I work for
does it, I personally do it freelance.)

I can tell you with out a doubt, all of them are moving to fixed width,
Flash based websites. I can also tell you without a doubt they have
all looked at other alternatives and have come to the conclusion that
for the content they are providing, this is the correct way to go. If
you disagree please visit any (US) entertainment website (or any US
website directed at children) to see that what I am saying is true.

This is the direction they are going, because this is the direction
that makes them the most money. They fully understand that some people
can not see or use their sites or video, but without a doubt, they are
increasing revenue with this direction.
Perhaps another point to make here is that to those types of people,
"all the accessibility sites are ugly". Their words, not mine.
It takes a lot of skill to get a CSS only layout to look atractive, and
even then CSS does not work very well, custom fonts are an example of
this and when you have an entire site that revolves around a specific
brand, they are not exactly going to settle for some bland and boring
font that does not look the part.
On the other hand, a lot of sites (such as most of the newspaper sites)
could do a much better job of providing access to the info without
needing to have printable and text only versions (there bloody info
sites FFS).
However, the Cartoon Networks site was OK as far as accessibility goes,
mind you it would look like shit with images turned off. They could
also use some CSS for some of the menu items, the links in the center
of the page come to mind.That way it would work better as you would be
able to use those links with JS turned off and it would probably load
quicker as well.
Now, I do NOT disagree with you. Over and over (search google) I have
stressed that this is NOT for everyone! This is for the entertainment
industry. I can only assume other vertical markets can benefit from
the same. But EVERYONE can not! For instance Google can not.
Virtually any mom and pop website can not. But there are many sites
that can. The web is NOT a one size fits all kind of thing. Each site
has to decide for themselves what works best for their site. Then THEY
have to decide what to do. Saying Fixed size is obsolete is a joke.
It may well be for the types of websites YOU work on, but it is not for
everyone.

There are NO absolutes on the web. Each website has to do what ever is
best for their particular site. What everyone else is done is
completely irrelevant. If what you do improves revenue, then it is
right.
While it is importent to make money for the majority of sites on the
web (even for some community groups), getting new members etc etc,
their needs to be some useable alternative so that if a person can't
use the site, they are not locked out completley.
 
B

Bergamot

Ed said:
And how do you know this?

It's really pointless to raise such issues with Mr Newbury. He
admittedly only speaks for the entertainment industry, which is an
entirely different beast from the commercial/business sites the rest of
us are concerned with.

I think we'd all agree that Flash is a good technology for the kind of
site that's geared towards the like of video game playing teenage boys,
but I don't necessarily agree with him that all entertainment type sites
would do better with 100% Flash. It doesn't matter to him what anybody
else's opinion is, anyway, so might as well drop the debate now.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Chaddy2222 said:
Perhaps another point to make here is that to those types of people,
"all the accessibility sites are ugly". Their words, not mine.
It takes a lot of skill to get a CSS only layout to look atractive, and
even then CSS does not work very well, custom fonts are an example of
this and when you have an entire site that revolves around a specific
brand, they are not exactly going to settle for some bland and boring
font that does not look the part.

It is not just about the look. It is about the functionality too.
People are driven to sites like these because of the interactive way
they are designed. Much of the functionality can not be duplicated
with HTML and CSS. For example one most highly commented pieces I
created was and interactive transparent video index that "slid" over
the video. Completely impossible to do with out something like Flash
or Java. Yes, you can have a list of videos all with links in html,
that the end result would be the same, click on a link and the video
changes. But that is not what they (the viewers) want. They want that
interactiveness. they want the "cool", the "magic". There are actually
people out there (all going to hell no doubt) that like that kind of
thing.
However, the Cartoon Networks site was OK as far as accessibility goes,
mind you it would look like shit with images turned off.

Of course it looked like crap with images turned off. It is the
cartoon network for crying out loud...
They could
also use some CSS for some of the menu items, the links in the center
of the page come to mind.That way it would work better as you would be
able to use those links with JS turned off and it would probably load
quicker as well.

The people that visit, like those kinds of things. As the site gets
fancier, their visitors increase (that is a fact by the way). The
visitors of this kind of site are getting what they are asking for.
They want it.
While it is importent to make money for the majority of sites on the
web (even for some community groups), getting new members etc etc,
their needs to be some useable alternative so that if a person can't
use the site, they are not locked out completley.

I kind of agree. But when a child goes to the cartoon network they are
looking to find exactly what they do. Flash, graphics,
interactiveness, bells whistles, etc... That is what they want, and
that is what Cartoon network provides them. There is a need for sites
like this on the web. If there is someone that can not see them, well
that is too bad. I am sorry they can not use the site (or don't want
to use it as designed) But that does not mean that cartoon network
should not be able to provide a service on the web that is in large
demand.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Chaddy2222 said:
Perhaps another point to make here is that to those types of people,
"all the accessibility sites are ugly". Their words, not mine.
It takes a lot of skill to get a CSS only layout to look atractive, and
even then CSS does not work very well, custom fonts are an example of
this and when you have an entire site that revolves around a specific
brand, they are not exactly going to settle for some bland and boring
font that does not look the part.

It is not just about the look. It is about the functionality too.
People are driven to sites like these because of the interactive way
they are designed. Much of the functionality can not be duplicated
with HTML and CSS. For example one most highly commented pieces I
created was and interactive transparent video index that "slid" over
the video. Completely impossible to do with out something like Flash
or Java. Yes, you can have a list of videos all with links in html,
that the end result would be the same, click on a link and the video
changes. But that is not what they (the viewers) want. They want that
interactiveness. they want the "cool", the "magic". There are actually
people out there (all going to hell no doubt) that like that kind of
thing.
However, the Cartoon Networks site was OK as far as accessibility goes,
mind you it would look like shit with images turned off.

Of course it looked like crap with images turned off. It is the
cartoon network for crying out loud...
They could
also use some CSS for some of the menu items, the links in the center
of the page come to mind.That way it would work better as you would be
able to use those links with JS turned off and it would probably load
quicker as well.

The people that visit, like those kinds of things. As the site gets
fancier, their visitors increase (that is a fact by the way). The
visitors of this kind of site are getting what they are asking for.
They want it.
While it is importent to make money for the majority of sites on the
web (even for some community groups), getting new members etc etc,
their needs to be some useable alternative so that if a person can't
use the site, they are not locked out completley.

I kind of agree. But when a child goes to the cartoon network they are
looking to find exactly what they do. Flash, graphics,
interactiveness, bells whistles, etc... That is what they want, and
that is what Cartoon network provides them. There is a need for sites
like this on the web. If there is someone that can not see them, well
that is too bad. I am sorry they can not use the site (or don't want
to use it as designed) But that does not mean that cartoon network
should not be able to provide a service on the web that is in large
demand.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Ed said:
Sure it can. The web was originally designed that way and for that
purpose. I include images as content, of course.

A car was originally designed with a hand crank to. But things evolve
over the years.
And how do you know this? What studies have you done and why do you
think your studies are better than other studies that have shown
otherwise?

No study needed. As these types of sites get fancier, the visitors and
revenue increase.
Once again, what's your evidence of this? And is it the majority of
visitors you should be catering to or the majority of potential
visitors? Don't you want to have more visitors?

Visitor numbers and revenue both increase with the pizazz. Do you not
get there are people that actually like this kind of thing? The search
for it. Not everyone wants a plain accessable. Some want flash menus,
flash interaction video, color, fun, interactiveness. And if we could
get the same functionality from html and css we would. But you can't.
So we use the tools available to get the job done, and fill a need of
the online community.EVEN if that need is not your need
Which is why fixed width sites are basicaly bad. Fluid sites that work
in almost all browsers (including I.E.) are perfectly possible and even
easy if you understand CSS and semantic html coding.

Who cares. These sites don't care if they work in every browser and
that everyone can see them. They are not going to increase their
revenue by making the site more accessible. They are going to make
more revenue by making it fancier. But using the latest and greatest
Flash features. THAT is what brings in the crowds for these sites.
These sites provide a service to a specific type of on line user. And
we do it very well. You just don't happen to be on of the users they
want to cater too. If you were, then you would love the site.
And once again, what's your evidence for this? How can it bring more
money in to purposely lock out people with the very money you want who
happen to be visually impaired? Is their money not valuable to you?

Actually no, their money is NOT important. Or I should say the money
lost by accommodating them is more important.

If you have to ask this, then you truly don't understand how these
types sites work and there is little need to discuss further. Here is
the bottom line. For sites like this;
FANCY = REVENUE -- PLAIN = LOSS OF REVENUE. All the accessibility and
usability studies are meaningless when it comes to revenue. If it
brings in more revenue, then it is the right way to do it.
There are such laws in various constituencies but they are rarely
heavily enforced. I believe there have been some lawsuits filed against
in the USA big websites by visually disabled people who find they can't
go there. If one of them wins big, money will certainly sing a
different tune.

And the moment they are enforced we will all lose.
 
C

Chaddy2222

Travis said:
It is not just about the look. It is about the functionality too.
People are driven to sites like these because of the interactive way
they are designed. Much of the functionality can not be duplicated
with HTML and CSS. For example one most highly commented pieces I
created was and interactive transparent video index that "slid" over
the video. Completely impossible to do with out something like Flash
or Java.
Very true.

Yes, you can have a list of videos all with links in html,
that the end result would be the same, click on a link and the video
changes. But that is not what they (the viewers) want. They want that
interactiveness. they want the "cool", the "magic". There are actually
people out there (all going to hell no doubt) that like that kind of
thing.
Yes, I agree. I think it's just that those items such as Flash tend to
get looked down on, due to not being used in a good (or proper way) on
comercial websites. Excluding entertainment and music sites.
Of course it looked like crap with images turned off. It is the
cartoon network for crying out loud...
Yes, my point exactly.
The people that visit, like those kinds of things. As the site gets
fancier, their visitors increase (that is a fact by the way). The
visitors of this kind of site are getting what they are asking for.
They want it.


I kind of agree. But when a child goes to the cartoon network they are
looking to find exactly what they do. Flash, graphics,
interactiveness, bells whistles, etc... That is what they want, and
that is what Cartoon network provides them. There is a need for sites
like this on the web. If there is someone that can not see them, well
that is too bad. I am sorry they can not use the site (or don't want
to use it as designed) But that does not mean that cartoon network
should not be able to provide a service on the web that is in large
demand.
Well, sites like Cartoon Network are the exception, they can get away
with doing what they do as they aim at a specific target marget
(Children in this case) who are a dam hard audience to keep entertained
at the best of times. They do like a lot of interaction though.
I could not think of many comercial sites (wanting to promote a service
or sell a product, I doubt that same design would work for them. I
guess it's knowing what works and what does not and useing that to some
kind of an advantage.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top