Show me the way

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004.

  1. How about some REAL examples? There is a lot of advice floating around
    here about how you "should" do a web site. But no real examples. Sure
    everyone points people the their personal page, or their "how to"
    tutorial that they wrote. But I never see an examples of a real
    company website that anyone is proud to show off.

    This leads me to believe that "talk is cheap". It is simple to tell
    people what they "should" do. But a little more dificult to convince
    the customer that they too "should" do it this way.

    I can not go to my customer and tell them they should have a fully
    accessable site, viewable by all in the world reguardless of how they
    get there. If I can not show them a REAL example of such a site.
    ESPECIALY when their bigest compeditor uses Flash, or JS navigation.
    (Not to mention ALL of this probably works on their IE browser.)

    Telling the customer they may loses customers because of their website
    is meaningless if their website works for them and their friends.
    Turning off Javascript or activeX is "nice" but the customer says "Who
    the heck knows how to do that?" or "well they will turn it on if they
    want my stuff"

    There are "in a perfect world" reasons to do something (what we read
    here all the time) and "Hey wake up, this is reality" reasons.

    How about some REAL examples to help prove the point?
    Any takers? I am staring to hold my breath now....

    --
    -=Tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Travis Newbury

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > How about some REAL examples? There is a lot of advice floating around
    > here about how you "should" do a web site. But no real examples. Sure
    > everyone points people the their personal page, or their "how to"
    > tutorial that they wrote. But I never see an examples of a real
    > company website that anyone is proud to show off.
    >
    > This leads me to believe that "talk is cheap". It is simple to tell
    > people what they "should" do. But a little more dificult to convince
    > the customer that they too "should" do it this way.
    >
    > I can not go to my customer and tell them they should have a fully
    > accessable site, viewable by all in the world reguardless of how they
    > get there. If I can not show them a REAL example of such a site.
    > ESPECIALY when their bigest compeditor uses Flash, or JS navigation.
    > (Not to mention ALL of this probably works on their IE browser.)
    >
    > Telling the customer they may loses customers because of their website
    > is meaningless if their website works for them and their friends.
    > Turning off Javascript or activeX is "nice" but the customer says "Who
    > the heck knows how to do that?" or "well they will turn it on if they
    > want my stuff"
    >
    > There are "in a perfect world" reasons to do something (what we read
    > here all the time) and "Hey wake up, this is reality" reasons.
    >
    > How about some REAL examples to help prove the point?
    > Any takers? I am staring to hold my breath now....
    >


    http://digitalharmony.no-ip.com/subhuman10/

    Not finished by far (launches in jan), but one of the projects I'm
    happiest with. Fixed width, frames, tables and Flash, RSS, JavaScript
    but all managed through a ASP content manager I wrote running on
    SQLServer, and the whol front end formatted through CSS. Also, fully
    validating. Everything I ever learned is in this site in one way or another.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Dec 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =====
    http://digitalharmony.no-ip.com/subhuman10/

    Not finished by far (launches in jan), but one of the projects I'm
    happiest with. Fixed width, frames, tables and Flash, RSS, JavaScript
    but all managed through a ASP content manager I wrote running on
    SQLServer, and the whol front end formatted through CSS. Also, fully
    validating. Everything I ever learned is in this site in one way or
    another.
    =====

    Great Band site. It has "feeling" (what ever that is). But fixed
    width, frames, flash, and javascript are all things "condemmed as evil"
    here.

    Which leads me to believe, that maybe there are some sites where these
    things are acceptable. A band site (dependant on the band I guess) is
    probalby a good example where things like this work better. (That's an
    observation not a statement)

    --
    -=Tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Travis Newbury

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On 20 Dec 2004 04:34:32 -0800, "Travis Newbury"
    <> wrote:

    >How about some REAL examples? There is a lot of advice floating around
    >here about how you "should" do a web site. But no real examples. Sure
    >everyone points people the their personal page, or their "how to"
    >tutorial that they wrote. But I never see an examples of a real
    >company website that anyone is proud to show off.


    See my response in another thread as to why I, and I guess others, can
    not or will not do that.

    >This leads me to believe that "talk is cheap". It is simple to tell
    >people what they "should" do. But a little more dificult to convince
    >the customer that they too "should" do it this way.


    So do you want examples of web sites or examples of winning arguments?

    >I can not go to my customer and tell them they should have a fully
    >accessable site, viewable by all in the world reguardless of how they
    >get there. If I can not show them a REAL example of such a site.
    >ESPECIALY when their bigest compeditor uses Flash, or JS navigation.
    >(Not to mention ALL of this probably works on their IE browser.)


    So? Build your flash or JS website. But make sure that it also works
    without those technologies. Accessibile web sites do not need to be
    bland and plain; that's a strawman and should be ignored.

    Is your company interested in attracting trendy young people with lots
    of money to burn? Great because those are the people who will be
    surfing the web on their wrist watches or whatever next year's coolest
    gadget turns out to be.

    On the other hand, all the baby boomers are now entering a very
    wealthy late middle age. That's a big market sector, and one that's
    going to be experiencing increasing eyesight problems over the next
    few years. Drop all those text-as-images and px sized text and make
    sure that all your content is resizable and hence legible.

    In 2004 IE's market share dropped for the first time in years. Only by
    a couple of percent, but the idea that IE is the WWW is officially
    over.

    Where are you? In an increasing number of countries accessibility is a
    legal requirement for some categories of web sites. If you're in the
    US then only government web sites are affected. But in the UK and
    Australia commercial sites are also affected.

    >Telling the customer they may loses customers because of their website
    >is meaningless if their website works for them and their friends.
    >Turning off Javascript or activeX is "nice" but the customer says "Who
    >the heck knows how to do that?"


    How about corporate firewalls that block downloads of [whatever]?

    > or "well they will turn it on if they want my stuff"


    Really? Go to site, see blank screen, go away.

    >There are "in a perfect world" reasons to do something (what we read
    >here all the time) and "Hey wake up, this is reality" reasons.


    Reality is that a web site that works for 100% of people has a larger
    market than one that works for 99% of people.

    Reality is that if your web site works the same way as other web sites
    then users will find it easier to use. It doesn't matter if your
    whizzy design and cool effects attract more chimps if the chimps can't
    figure out how to use your whizzy shopping basket to place an order.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Dec 20, 2004
    #4
  5. =====
    See my response in another thread as to why I, and I guess others, can
    not or will not do that.
    =====

    I feel that is a woosy way out. YMMV

    =====
    >This leads me to believe that "talk is cheap". It is simple to tell
    >people what they "should" do. But a little more dificult to convince
    >the customer that they too "should" do it this way.

    So do you want examples of web sites or examples of winning arguments?
    =====

    Winning arguments can be meaningless if you can not show the customer a
    real life example. I can defeat the any argument you have by opening
    IE and displaying the "broken site" on the clients computer.

    =====
    So? Build your flash or JS website. But make sure that it also works
    without those technologies. Accessibile web sites do not need to be
    bland and plain; that's a strawman and should be ignored.
    ....
    Is your company interested in attracting trendy young people with lots
    of money to burn? Great because those are the people who will be
    surfing the web on their wrist watches or whatever next year's coolest
    gadget turns out to be.
    =====

    Good argument, but where's the beef? Show me the proof that I am
    losing thousands because someone can not see the site on a wristwatch
    browser. Does the proof even exist? Not to mention "Mr. customer,
    when is the last time you went browsing on your phone?" chances are
    they never have.

    =====
    On the other hand, all the baby boomers are now entering a very
    wealthy late middle age. That's a big market sector, and one that's
    going to be experiencing increasing eyesight problems over the next
    few years. Drop all those text-as-images and px sized text and make
    sure that all your content is resizable and hence legible.
    =====

    "Well, Mr. Joe Client, just open IE and go to the site. Well you can
    see everthing and so can everyone else. Oh those few people that have
    bad eyesite can easily change the size of the fonts.... They are use
    to doing that all the time. "

    Argument defeated. Why? Because it WORKED on the clients browser.

    =====
    In 2004 IE's market share dropped for the first time in years. Only by
    a couple of percent, but the idea that IE is the WWW is officially
    over.
    =====

    I use Firefox, and never have issues viewing websites. So that
    argument is menaingless. With the exception of a few querks in the way
    IE handles borders, all comercial sites look more or less identical in
    both browsers.

    =====
    Where are you? In an increasing number of countries accessibility is a
    legal requirement for some categories of web sites. If you're in the
    US then only government web sites are affected. But in the UK and
    Australia commercial sites are also affected.
    =====

    In the US. So that's all that matters to me (and to most companies in
    the US) "The punchline" in Atlanta Georgia does not give a crap about
    accessability laws in England.

    =====
    How about corporate firewalls that block downloads of [whatever]?
    =====

    That argument may work if the company's biggest clients are corporate
    sales, but...

    Mr. Customer, Companies are really cracking down on "browsing" at the
    office. These people will all come back to you site when they are at
    home....

    =====
    Really? Go to site, see blank screen, go away.
    =====

    With the exception of the fringe sites, a blank screen is hardly what
    the IE, mozilla, or opera user will see.

    =====
    Reality is that a web site that works for 100% of people has a larger
    market than one that works for 99% of people.
    =====
    This is true if (and only if) design is meaningless in all cases.
    Unfortunataly, the animals browsing the web are Humans.

    =====
    Reality is that if your web site works the same way as other web sites
    then users will find it easier to use.
    =====

    So if your website works the way the others do (and the majority of the
    others are bad you have to agree) This seems to be the exact opposite
    of everything else you just said. Do I make my site like the rest of
    the web, or do I make it like the ones no one (including yourself) will
    show here?

    Please do not take this thread the wrong way. I am sure there are
    plenty of people here that would love to give their client a great
    accessable site, but are tired of losing contract to the wiz-bang
    developers because they can defeat any accessability argument you can
    come up with by simply opening the site in IE.

    "only a few nerds and computer geeks use the other browsers" will win
    every time.

    --
    -=Tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Travis Newbury

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > =====
    > http://digitalharmony.no-ip.com/subhuman10/
    >
    > Not finished by far (launches in jan), but one of the projects I'm
    > happiest with. Fixed width, frames, tables and Flash, RSS, JavaScript
    > but all managed through a ASP content manager I wrote running on
    > SQLServer, and the whol front end formatted through CSS. Also, fully
    > validating. Everything I ever learned is in this site in one way or
    > another.
    > =====
    >
    > Great Band site. It has "feeling" (what ever that is). But fixed
    > width, frames, flash, and javascript are all things "condemmed as evil"
    > here.


    Which is why I made a point of mentioning them :)

    > Which leads me to believe, that maybe there are some sites where these
    > things are acceptable. A band site (dependant on the band I guess) is
    > probalby a good example where things like this work better. (That's an
    > observation not a statement)


    Exactly. People might moan and bitch all they want about the
    "technically correct thing to do", but to be quite honest most punters
    simply dont care. They're fickle creatures easily swayed by pretty looks
    and "exciting" content.

    However I DO go to great lengths to make sure it all works pretty well
    in most browsers, and all of the content is accessible without Flash or
    JavaScript... (or will be, some bits not quite finished).



    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Dec 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Travis Newbury

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On 20 Dec 2004 05:55:03 -0800, "Travis Newbury"
    <> wrote:

    Please quote in a more normal fashion and include attributions. It's
    very difficult to tell what's written by you and what's written by
    other people.

    >=====
    >See my response in another thread as to why I, and I guess others, can
    >not or will not do that.
    >=====
    >
    >I feel that is a woosy way out. YMMV


    I can not discuss a client's web site in a public forum without their
    consent. If that makes me woosy (wussy? woozey? I don't know the only
    definition of woosy I can find is a variant of "oozy" which doesn't
    seem to fit) then so be it. I call it professionalism.

    >So do you want examples of web sites or examples of winning arguments?
    >=====
    >
    >Winning arguments can be meaningless if you can not show the customer a
    >real life example. I can defeat the any argument you have by opening
    >IE and displaying the "broken site" on the clients computer.


    Fine. If your client only wants a site that works in IE with factory
    settings and all optional technologies turned on get him to sign off
    on that spec. You've upheld your end of the bargain - you've pointed
    out the problems with doing it that way and he's decided that he's not
    interested. Take his money, build his site and move on.

    >=====
    >Is your company interested in attracting trendy young people with lots
    >of money to burn? Great because those are the people who will be
    >surfing the web on their wrist watches or whatever next year's coolest
    >gadget turns out to be.
    >=====
    >
    >Good argument, but where's the beef? Show me the proof that I am
    >losing thousands because someone can not see the site on a wristwatch
    >browser. Does the proof even exist? Not to mention "Mr. customer,
    >when is the last time you went browsing on your phone?" chances are
    >they never have.


    The point is that you can not predict what the next big thing will be.
    But if you write according to standards then you have a better chance
    of being handled properly by whatever it is.

    >=====
    >On the other hand, all the baby boomers are now entering a very
    >wealthy late middle age. That's a big market sector, and one that's
    >going to be experiencing increasing eyesight problems over the next
    >few years. Drop all those text-as-images and px sized text and make
    >sure that all your content is resizable and hence legible.
    >=====
    >
    >"Well, Mr. Joe Client, just open IE and go to the site. Well you can
    >see everthing and so can everyone else. Oh those few people that have
    >bad eyesite can easily change the size of the fonts.... They are use
    >to doing that all the time. "


    No they're not. If the text is rendered as graphics or sized with px
    in CSS then they can not resize it in IE. So your client is either
    ignorant or lieing when then say that, it's your job as the
    professional expert to politely correct them.

    Anyway, why should your client care how you code font sizes in CSS?
    I've never met a client who insisted on px font sizes.

    >Argument defeated. Why? Because it WORKED on the clients browser.


    Ask your client to have his mother test the site. Ask your client to
    sit a few feet further back and test the web site.

    Anyway, no one is suggesting that it shouldn't work in the client's
    browser. But why not have it work in the client's browser and everyone
    else's?

    >=====
    >Where are you? In an increasing number of countries accessibility is a
    >legal requirement for some categories of web sites. If you're in the
    >US then only government web sites are affected. But in the UK and
    >Australia commercial sites are also affected.
    >=====
    >
    >In the US. So that's all that matters to me (and to most companies in
    >the US) "The punchline" in Atlanta Georgia does not give a crap about
    >accessability laws in England.


    Well, this newsgroup is about the WWW, so the advice you get here will
    assume that you're asking about a global audience. Please go to a
    US-centric newsgroup for US-centric advice.

    >=====
    >How about corporate firewalls that block downloads of [whatever]?
    >=====
    >
    >That argument may work if the company's biggest clients are corporate
    >sales, but...
    >
    >Mr. Customer, Companies are really cracking down on "browsing" at the
    >office. These people will all come back to you site when they are at
    >home....


    Ah, at home, where they only have dial up rather than a nice fat
    corporate pipe...

    >=====
    >Really? Go to site, see blank screen, go away.
    >=====
    >
    >With the exception of the fringe sites, a blank screen is hardly what
    >the IE, mozilla, or opera user will see.


    If your site is built in Flash with no fallback then a user without
    Flash will see a blank screen. Ditto many graphic heavy sites with no
    alt attributes. Or sites that rely on JS to redirect to different
    pages or to load content.

    >=====
    >Reality is that a web site that works for 100% of people has a larger
    >market than one that works for 99% of people.
    >=====
    >This is true if (and only if) design is meaningless in all cases.
    >Unfortunataly, the animals browsing the web are Humans.


    The design can be anything you like. A site that works for 100% of
    users and which looks 'cool' for 99% of them still beats a site that
    works for 99% of users and which looks cool for 100% of that 99%.

    >=====
    >Reality is that if your web site works the same way as other web sites
    >then users will find it easier to use.
    >=====
    >
    >So if your website works the way the others do (and the majority of the
    >others are bad you have to agree)


    99% of web sites are crap. 99% of everything is crap.

    But most web sites do not colour the scroll bars. Most web sites use
    HTML forms for inputs. Most web sites only carry out minimal CSS
    formatting on form elements. Most web sites do not open new windows.
    Most web sites do not try to disable the right mouse click. Most web
    sites do not use Flash. Most web sites do not use frames. Most web
    sites do not **** up the back button.

    > This seems to be the exact opposite
    >of everything else you just said. Do I make my site like the rest of
    >the web, or do I make it like the ones no one (including yourself) will
    >show here?


    Try using a shopping basket built in Flash to one built with standard
    HTML. See how the little things like cursors and stored user data are
    different or absent. Those little things make users feel comfortable
    and secure. And when you're trying to get their credit card details
    its the little things that count. And look at a shopping cart built
    entirely in Flash where multiple pages are in the same movie. Whoops,
    if you use the back button to check on something you entered on the
    previous 'page'.

    I recently upgraded both PhotoShop and Dreamweaver. The Adobe site was
    easy to use and the upgrade purchase took less tha five minutes. The
    Macromedia site use Flash heavily for no good reason other than
    corporate pride and was a pain to use. Three browsers, several
    clearings of the cache and restarts, an angry e-mail to customer
    support and over half an hour later I finally purchased the upgrade.
    Next time I buy from Amazon not direct from Macromedia. The Amazon
    forms all work the way I expect them to work and work in all my
    browsers and don't need any extra plugins to be installed and enabled.
    That's good usability. That leads to fewer abandoned purchases.

    >Please do not take this thread the wrong way. I am sure there are
    >plenty of people here that would love to give their client a great
    >accessable site, but are tired of losing contract to the wiz-bang
    >developers because they can defeat any accessability argument you can
    >come up with by simply opening the site in IE.


    And a few months later I'm asked to come in and fix the broken site.
    It happens.

    Only this morning I got a phone call asking from a recruiter asking
    whether I could do layout with CSS instead of tables and whether I
    could build sites to WAI Level AA.

    I've been doing this stuff for seven years. I've been pushing
    standards and accessibility all that time and over the last few years
    I've seen huge changes in the market - web sites that are cool to look
    at but a pain to use are so lats century. If Atlanta, Georgia hasn't
    caught up with the rest of the world then maybe you need to start
    educating it.

    >"only a few nerds and computer geeks use the other browsers" will win
    >every time.


    Nerds and computer geeks spend more on online than other people.

    Actually, some of the greatest resistance to using standards comes
    from the nerds and computer geeks. The ones who code ASP and run IIS
    servers and blather on about needing to support IE and how MS make the
    'de facto' standard. The marketing and design crowds are often much
    more open to the idea of reaching a larger more varied audience.

    I build sites that are as accessible and usable as possible. Even when
    the client isn't interested I do the best job I can. I don't need
    permission to do things the right way and neither do you. Try it.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Dec 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Travis Newbury

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Good argument, but where's the beef? Show me the proof that I am
    > losing thousands because someone can not see the site on a wristwatch
    > browser. Does the proof even exist? Not to mention "Mr. customer,
    > when is the last time you went browsing on your phone?" chances are
    > they never have.


    It's more common sense than anything. Imagine your client in a years
    time - 30% of people no longer using IE, or worse. And your site doesn't
    work. Lawyers come a-knocking at your door...

    > In the US. So that's all that matters to me (and to most companies in
    > the US) "The punchline" in Atlanta Georgia does not give a crap about
    > accessability laws in England.


    The US and Europe both have legally enforcable laws when it comes to
    accessibility. It only takes one person to sue your client and your
    client will turn right back around and do it to you. When accessibility
    is so easily achieved it's just pure stupidity not to at least consider
    the issues when building sites. Further more, isn't there some sort of
    moral incentive here? You dont do these things "because you have to",
    it's more about what you SHOULD do.

    > So if your website works the way the others do (and the majority of the
    > others are bad you have to agree) This seems to be the exact opposite
    > of everything else you just said. Do I make my site like the rest of
    > the web, or do I make it like the ones no one (including yourself) will
    > show here?


    You make a web site for your clients audience (rather than the client
    herself). If you can achieve this and hit a wider audience AND satisfy
    any moral/legal requirements at the same time, dont you thing that is a
    smart idea?

    > Please do not take this thread the wrong way. I am sure there are
    > plenty of people here that would love to give their client a great
    > accessable site, but are tired of losing contract to the wiz-bang
    > developers because they can defeat any accessability argument you can
    > come up with by simply opening the site in IE.


    Hardly. I design "wiz-bang" sites for bands (American bands). We're
    based in Scotland. We're very aware of the legal side of accessibility,
    and the fact that IE is loosing market share every month. Accessibility
    laws might start getting enforced, and I really don't want to be on the
    smelly end of Universal Musics' lawyers.

    I can defeat your argument just as easily by loading IE in front of a
    visually impaired person.

    > "only a few nerds and computer geeks use the other browsers" will win
    > every time.


    1 in 10 people use other browsers. That's a lot of nerds who might buy
    your clients products from their web site...

    And, gawd... learn how to quote properly will you? What's with all these
    "===". Makes it impossible to read. That standard is >>, which means a
    modern newsreader colour codes replies and quotes...

    ANYWAY



    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Dec 20, 2004
    #8
  9. =====
    Fine. If your client only wants a site that works in IE with factory
    settings and all optional technologies turned on get him to sign off
    on that spec.
    =====

    I am not saying that. And you are not understanding what I am asking.
    Any argument you can come up with to a potential client can be
    defeated by your competition (who does not make accessable sites)
    Every time by showing the client the site works on their browser.

    You are missing the point of my question. Thanks for yor input.
    --
    -=Tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #9
  10. =====
    It's more common sense than anything. Imagine your client in a years
    time - 30% of people no longer using IE, or worse. And your site
    doesn't
    work. Lawyers come a-knocking at your door...
    =====

    Not true. The sites all work in firefox , and opera, and netscape too.
    The border or margin might be a little off a little, but I use
    firefox all the time and never run into a site that does not work..
    Even those optimized for IE.

    And this thread has answered my question. Accessabilty and usability
    are big ticket items in this forum, but no [very few] corporate
    comercial sites seem to care as much as the people here do. (Your
    company, digital harmony, is living proof) So if you are big on
    "concept" and "doing what is right" then you head the down the
    accesability road. If you want to be commercially successful, you make
    some consessions to acessability and usability.

    I am not proclaiming right or wrong, only that it [accessability
    usability] does not seem to be the norm, or even compeditive, when
    building corporate comercial sites.

    Thanks all.

    --
    -=Tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #10
  11. Travis Newbury

    SpaceGirl Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > =====
    > It's more common sense than anything. Imagine your client in a years
    > time - 30% of people no longer using IE, or worse. And your site
    > doesn't
    > work. Lawyers come a-knocking at your door...
    > =====
    >
    > Not true. The sites all work in firefox , and opera, and netscape too.
    > The border or margin might be a little off a little, but I use
    > firefox all the time and never run into a site that does not work..
    > Even those optimized for IE.


    I meant in the future :)

    > And this thread has answered my question. Accessabilty and usability
    > are big ticket items in this forum, but no [very few] corporate
    > comercial sites seem to care as much as the people here do.


    The short-sightedness of big companies is hardly an excuse for you to do
    it too.

    > (Your
    > company, digital harmony, is living proof) So if you are big on
    > "concept" and "doing what is right" then you head the down the
    > accesability road. If you want to be commercially successful, you make
    > some consessions to acessability and usability.
    >
    > I am not proclaiming right or wrong, only that it [accessability
    > usability] does not seem to be the norm, or even compeditive, when
    > building corporate comercial sites.



    Our commercial site doesn't have a wide audience. If we did that with
    some of our customers' commercial sites we'd be dead meat.

    "Accessability usability" is just something you should do - it's not
    something to argue about.

    --


    x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

    # lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
    # remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
     
    SpaceGirl, Dec 20, 2004
    #11
  12. Travis Newbury

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On 20 Dec 2004 07:14:19 -0800, "Travis Newbury"
    <> wrote:

    >And you are not understanding what I am asking.
    >Any argument you can come up with to a potential client can be
    >defeated by your competition (who does not make accessable sites)
    >Every time by showing the client the site works on their browser.


    Fine. The competition gets the work and I don't. But I've been doing
    this for seven years and I haven't starved yet. So obviously something
    is at odds with reality.

    >You are missing the point of my question.


    Can you tell us what the point is?

    >Thanks for yor input.


    You're welcome.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Dec 20, 2004
    #12
  13. Travis Newbury

    Karl Core Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > =====
    > Fine. If your client only wants a site that works in IE with factory
    > settings and all optional technologies turned on get him to sign off
    > on that spec.
    > =====
    >
    > I am not saying that. And you are not understanding what I am asking.
    > Any argument you can come up with to a potential client can be
    > defeated by your competition (who does not make accessable sites)
    > Every time by showing the client the site works on their browser.
    >
    > You are missing the point of my question. Thanks for yor input.


    Clients do not know and do not care about any of the dozens of reasons that
    can be floated about why a site must be made to be cross-browser,
    accessible, and user-friendly.

    I'll be the first to tell you that there's a ton of proselytizing on this
    and other geek NGs by people who know jack shit about business or users. A
    lot of them have had their opinions formed by other crackpot proselytizers
    like ole Jake Nielsen and his cooked-up numbers and lamebrained advice -
    "Make sure your customers can contact you". No shit?? Whodathunkit?

    The truth is, a website's true, independent ROI for a brick & mortar
    business is hard to calculate to begin with. Trying to sell a client on
    standards & accessibility is damn near impossible. But in my opinion,
    building a standards compliant, accessible site is part of doing a good job.
    I wish people would stop treating it as though it was something extra.

    Let's face it, if you **** up and forget to put a ")" at the end of a
    function in PHP, the whole thing wouldn't work. But browsers are much too
    forgiving of tag soup. I think it is time we change the tide on all these
    slackass "designers" out there. Instead of us having to explain why we
    think standards are such a big deal, why don't we ask them to explain why
    they think they can turn out shitty work?

    As for Usability related concerns - the importance is directly related to
    the impact on the user. Are "splash screens" a stupid idea? You bet. But do
    they really keep people away from buying from a company? No. But here's
    where that whole fuzzy ROI business comes in - on the surface, a splash
    screen is only a mere annoyance. But what about replacing the splash screen
    with important news or special offers? Or, for an e-commerce site, what
    about using a cookie-based system that remembers user's last purchases &
    inquiries and recommends related products? Now the minorly annoying splash
    screen is replaced with a user-friendly and helpful cross-sell, thus giving
    a much higher *potential* ROI for making a user-friendly site.

    This is what you must latch onto - there is a lot of talk about how bad
    things are. The measure of the negative impact must be combined with the
    potential benefit of the fix and applied appropriately. Nothing more,
    nothing less, because the client just doesn't care.


    --
    -Karl Core
    Please Support "Project Boneyard":
    http://www.insurgence.net/info.aspx?action=band&item=boneyard
     
    Karl Core, Dec 20, 2004
    #13
  14. Travis Newbury

    Steve Pugh Guest

    On 20 Dec 2004 07:14:19 -0800, "Travis Newbury"
    <> wrote:

    >=====
    >Fine. If your client only wants a site that works in IE with factory
    >settings and all optional technologies turned on get him to sign off
    >on that spec.
    >=====
    >
    >I am not saying that. And you are not understanding what I am asking.
    >Any argument you can come up with to a potential client can be
    >defeated by your competition (who does not make accessable sites)
    >Every time by showing the client the site works on their browser.


    If your client is not interested in accessibility or usability or
    future proofing, etc. then you will not win the job by focussing on
    those things. Likewise if the client is interested in those things
    then you will not get the job by focussing on gee-whizz stuff. Basic
    new business sense is to focus the pitch on what the client is
    interested in.

    Instead you win the job by being cheaper or faster or better designers
    or more robust back end systems. And then you offer the accessibility,
    etc. as a value added bonus.

    Once you've won the job then you can start working on the client to
    persuade them to adopt a more accessible approach (though for many
    things you don't need to raise it, just code it in an accessible as
    default). The competition is no longer in the picture.

    I build standards compliant, accessible web sites. I get some business
    as a direct consequence of being able to do that. I get some other
    business as a consequence of being very fast and very reliable, the
    accessibility, etc. just comes as a bonus in those cases. And often
    the client is impressed and enlightened and remembers that
    accessibility is important and can be included at no extra cost.

    Steve
     
    Steve Pugh, Dec 20, 2004
    #14
  15. Karl Core wrote:
    > ...This is what you must latch onto - there is a lot of talk about

    how bad
    > things are. The measure of the negative impact must be combined with

    the
    > potential benefit of the fix and applied appropriately. Nothing

    more,
    > nothing less, because the client just doesn't care.

    Good write up. Thanks Karl!

    --
    -=Tm=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #15
  16. SpaceGirl wrote:
    > The short-sightedness of big companies is hardly an excuse for you to

    do
    > it too.


    No it isn't. But until some one is independatally wealthy, and can
    afford to turn away business to satisfy their dedication to doing it
    the right way, We wil continue to go down the path of evil... (0o)

    > Our commercial site doesn't have a wide audience. If we did that with


    > some of our customers' commercial sites we'd be dead meat.


    But the argument seems to be (in this forum) that by creatingthe site
    so it is fully accessable, then these customers you are currently
    turning away (the ones that can not see your design site for one reason
    or another) will come flocking to your doot with money in hand.

    I am not seeing that happen in the real world.

    > "Accessability usability" is just something you should do - it's not
    > something to argue about.


    I hope I am not coming across as arguing about it. The views here seem
    to conflict with the views in other forums (albeit graphics based
    forums) and what is happening in the real world.

    --
    -=Tn=-
     
    Travis Newbury, Dec 20, 2004
    #16
  17. Travis Newbury

    Tamblyne Guest

    On 20 Dec 2004 04:34:32 -0800, Travis Newbury <>
    wrote:

    > How about some REAL examples? There is a lot of advice floating around
    > here about how you "should" do a web site. But no real examples. Sure
    > everyone points people the their personal page, or their "how to"
    > tutorial that they wrote. But I never see an examples of a real
    > company website that anyone is proud to show off.
    >
    > This leads me to believe that "talk is cheap". It is simple to tell
    > people what they "should" do. But a little more dificult to convince
    > the customer that they too "should" do it this way.
    >
    > I can not go to my customer and tell them they should have a fully
    > accessable site, viewable by all in the world reguardless of how they
    > get there. If I can not show them a REAL example of such a site.
    > ESPECIALY when their bigest compeditor uses Flash, or JS navigation.
    > (Not to mention ALL of this probably works on their IE browser.)
    >
    > Telling the customer they may loses customers because of their website
    > is meaningless if their website works for them and their friends.
    > Turning off Javascript or activeX is "nice" but the customer says "Who
    > the heck knows how to do that?" or "well they will turn it on if they
    > want my stuff"
    >
    > There are "in a perfect world" reasons to do something (what we read
    > here all the time) and "Hey wake up, this is reality" reasons.
    >
    > How about some REAL examples to help prove the point?
    > Any takers? I am staring to hold my breath now....


    Hi, Travis --

    I don't have any flashy sites to show you -- I don't get paid to do work
    for other people. I'm graphically challenged, and the things I do for
    myself and my friends are too boring to place before the scrutiny of this
    group, or alt.html.critque. I just kind of lurk and learn things that
    have been very helpful. So I can say that all of my sites validate and,
    to the best of my knowledge, are accessible, but they are not impressive.

    But after reading some of the responses to your inquiry, I thought I'd
    just pop in to say that *I* use several different browsers and operating
    systems, depending on my whim, as well as being stuck in dial-up hell at
    no better than 26K, and the issues that are addressed in this forum are a
    constant reality for me, as well as a lot of other people that you'll
    never hear from.

    My Dad was a Woolworth's manager and as a kid we used to play in the stock
    room and the employee's lounge on Sundays when the store was closed (so
    now you know how old I am! <g>). There was a poster in the hallway there
    that I have never forgotten. It showed a cartoon of a cashier talking on
    the phone and generally messing around while a customer waited patiently.
    The caption was "I might not say anything now -- I just won't come back."

    It is a constant source of amazement, as well as amusement, to me that
    companies and individuals will spend what is obiviously a great deal of
    time and money to launch a site -- and then make it virtually impossible
    for me to use unless I change the way I want to do things. Some settings,
    such as adjusting font size, for me are simple, since I never use IE
    unless I'm checking to see if it renders one of my sites properly. But it
    still greatly irritates me when I come upon a site with a font size so
    small that I have to increase it to almost 200% to be able to read it --
    I'm not blind, I just need bifocals, but I am in the group mentioned in
    another response -- an aging babyboomer.

    A greater issue, however, is when I'm using a Linux distro -- I don't have
    flash and other plugins installed and some sites are, essentially, blank
    pages. If the site owner expects me to close up everything I'm working on
    and boot Windows to view their site, they are SOL.

    Load time is also a constant issue, and one I think a lot of people forget
    about. SpaceGirl's example site, for instance, took over two minutes to
    load for me, and the only reason I waited that long was because I wanted
    to see what she has done. It's a fabulous, very impressive site. But
    personally I would not have waited that long for it to load -- but then
    I'm not part of the target audience, either. (I don't intend this as a
    critisism of her work -- only an example of the real issues facing dial-up
    users.)

    In most cases when I find problems, I will email the webmaster and let
    them know, if I can even find a way to do that. Nine times out of ten, if
    I get an answer at all, I get a "gee, we're sorry" response, but it's
    pretty clear that they don't really care if their site design causes a
    problem for me or not.

    The point of all of this is that just because someone doesn't complain
    about the usability of a site doesn't mean that they aren't having
    problems with it. I'm used to my feedback being ignored, and so are a lot
    of other people -- so they just don't bother to say anything. The issues
    raised here are real ones, whether the pointy-headed CEO wants to admit it
    or not.

    I spend my money and my time where both are valued. If it is apparent to
    me that the company or individual is on nothing more than an ego trip, I
    take my business elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that I would be the
    only one to do this.

    Hope this helps you -- and I'll head back to lurk-mode now.

    Tam
     
    Tamblyne, Dec 20, 2004
    #17
  18. Travis Newbury

    Neal Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > SpaceGirl wrote:
    >> The short-sightedness of big companies is hardly an excuse for you to

    > do
    >> it too.

    >
    > No it isn't. But until some one is independatally wealthy, and can
    > afford to turn away business to satisfy their dedication to doing it
    > the right way, We wil continue to go down the path of evil... (0o)


    So electricians, lawyers and architects are all independently wealthy?
    Nearly all of them will say no to you if they think your idea is unwise.
    Why should web designers be different?

    >> Our commercial site doesn't have a wide audience. If we did that with

    >
    >> some of our customers' commercial sites we'd be dead meat.

    >
    > But the argument seems to be (in this forum) that by creatingthe site
    > so it is fully accessable, then these customers you are currently
    > turning away (the ones that can not see your design site for one reason
    > or another) will come flocking to your doot with money in hand.
    >
    > I am not seeing that happen in the real world.


    I can only speak for me - years back when I transformed a site from frames
    and tables to a proper and valid HTML+CSS design and improved on its
    structure and appearance, our hits and feedback increased substantially.
    Why? More people willing to link. More users able to access the site. I
    can also report that others have told me they've experienced the same
    thing.

    It's just one part of having the best internet presence you can manage - a
    part that should not be neglected or undervalued.

    >> "Accessability usability" is just something you should do - it's not
    >> something to argue about.


    Exactly - it's one of my ongoing "ground rules" that whatever I do has to
    work in any enviromment I can possibly predict. That means designing for
    general use and then tweaking for the individual bugs afterward, which
    isn't easy at first.
     
    Neal, Dec 20, 2004
    #18
  19. On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 05:55:03 -0800, Travis Newbury wrote:

    > IE handles borders, all comercial sites look more or less identical in
    > both browsers.


    Wow. That sure as heck ain't true!

    --
    Jeffrey D. Silverman |
    Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

    Drop "PANTS" to reply by email
     
    Jeffrey Silverman, Dec 20, 2004
    #19
  20. Travis Newbury

    Kris Guest

    In article <>,
    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote:

    > How about some REAL examples to help prove the point?
    > Any takers?


    Dig up Google's archives and lurk for one's sig url. I used to have my
    company's up there until recently.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
     
    Kris, Dec 20, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Matt

    TO show or NOT to show

    Matt, May 2, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    385
  2. Disco Octopus

    to show image or to show flash

    Disco Octopus, May 13, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,428
    Toby A Inkster
    May 14, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    583
    Evertjan.
    Sep 30, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    177
    Evertjan.
    Sep 30, 2005
  5. John B. Matthews
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    757
    John B. Matthews
    Dec 9, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page