Who here hates usability, accesibility and standardisation?

[site_designer]

well?

It is up to us how we design our sites and it is the user's job to keep up by getting new plugins when neccesary. If we make our sites usable and accesible to some disabled freak, then our site's will be text based!

[Saz]

Originally posted by site_designer
well?

It is up to us how we design our sites and it is the user's job to keep up by getting new plugins when neccesary. If we make our sites usable and accesible to some disabled freak, then our site's will be text based!

Whilst I agree with you that users who refuse to upgrade their systems can be a pain to design around, I find your comment about 'some disabled freak' intolerable. Who are you to say such things?
Is it a user's fault if their eyesight is bad or if they are completely blind? NO! Should they be deprived of all that the internet can offer them? NO!
For your information, I have a niece with cerebral palsy. She's also epileptic. Is she a freak?!

[Jeremy W.]

No, it's our job as marketer's of our customers products to make sure that they are visible to a large target audience.

For instance, say that you had a print job and you decided to make it "gimmicky" by being one of those huge posters you see downtown. Well, to be really gimmicky you make the picture a 3d one (need special goggles).

However, this obviously limits the passersby's ability to see the poster and they must go to some kids store (where do you BUY these goggles anyways?!) to view your ad for a company they aren't sure about.

So, you need to first convince that customer that it is worth the trouble of buying those goggles (or getting them if you can say mail them to them free of charge) in order to buy your ad... When all of that effort could have been spent just designing a proper ad, studying what the market wants and needs and working with the client to produce something that is meaningful and will last.

To me, the same applies to the web. It's our job to match our client's needs, our desires for a "nice" design and the target audience's expectations, habits, etc up to create the "perfect" design which is memorable, friendly, usable, functional and stable.

For the customer: They want to make sure people will notice it, they will understand it, and they will go away with a sense of "yeah, I should try that" or "I want to know more about this company".

For the audience: They want something that will catch their attention, either make them laugh or think and actually have a point (be worth watching) (this is where flash often falls short, it often fails the: "why is this here" question).

For the designer: You really need to know that you've had a job well done, you don't like people complaining, you want to get your $...

Sorry if this seems too shallow, but I've only had like 4 hours sleep tonight.

[Mark T.]

This guy surely doesn't know what he is talking about. Designing a website which is compatible with almost all systems can surely be hard to accomplish, and that is also the beauty of it. Challenge is the name of the sweet word. You will come out of your designing-battle much stronger if you take the challenge, and believe me, you will be much more proud of your website if everything worked and it is compatible with almost all systems. Plus your visitors will have a better opinion on your site, thus are more likely to come back.

And the remark of the disabled member of our society being a freak is just intolerable. The Internet sometimes is all they have to not become isolated from the rest of the society.

[mmj]

I think this topic may have been posted to evoke this kind of response.

If this is not the case, then Rafe is correct about the poster not knowing what he is talking about.

A website needs usability, accessibility and standardisation to survive. If I can't use it, it is a bad website. If I can't access it with the browser I use, it is a bad website. If it is non-standard and jumbled, it is a bad website.

[aspen]

I definitely think you aren't very experienced.

Most web developers dream of more standards and for browsers to comply with them. Its a lack of standards and browser compliance that causes the biggest headache when designing a site.

Hopefully one day everything will be standardized.

[freakysid]

The question is rhetorical in that, if you want people to use your site, usability is important. If you want a broad user base to be able to access your web site accessability is important.

These days I tend to use the web mainly as an IT dude, I guess. I'm looking for information and opinion on technical issues mainly. However, I remember when I first got onto the web and was not in IT at all, I used the web far more as a recreational tool - in the true sense of surfing the net, I would wander around looking at edgy, arty, experimental, and just entertaining sites. There are still a great deal of people who use the web for this sort of recreational surfing. Its not all ecommerce and B2C, B2B, C2C, etc.

So, if you want a site to be useable, make it usable. If you want a site to be accessable, make it so. If someone is paying you to make it so, then you had better! Otherwise what's it matter?

BTW, personally, I hate accessability, usability and standards. That's why I use 100% Microsoft products.

[delemtri]

site_designer:

Not everybody has the money to buy every update of every piece of software that exists. Learn a bit of tolerance.

[mad-onion]

For possibly the first time ever i totally agree with studiococo...great anology!

Site_Designer, all i can do is laugh then sigh and then continue injecting my drugs! It is not the users JOB to do anything, as developers we must make sites/programs/whatever that even a parylised monkey with one eye and two fingers could use!! Not everyone is a tech head, it is the minority that are....you obviously missed out on the first lesson of "How to build a website"

As for your disabled freak BS, i like many other people take offence at that! I am not disabled, nor do i have any friends who are but that is just not right.. get over yourself buddy, maybe someone should come and make you disabled so we can all laugh at you and call you a freak...

[Aidan Bahta]

site_designer, I hope that you are being sarcastic. If you aren't, then I don't think your name is appropriate.

I guess it seems like all of us are picking on you, but for good reason. A designer who doesn't care about compatibility or accessiblity isn't a good one IMO.

[site_designer]

onion :

Depending on the circumstances on the injury, it could be that person's fault, but then if it is then we shouldn't have to design a site that suits them - think about it.

Also, many people, even with 56k modems, want to see advanced visual media like flash, quicktime etc.

If we design a site for disabled, then how will it attract anyone - so theres no point, unless your ecommerce and then it is different - wide audience=disabled people too

Anyway - what is worse is that surfers can't even be bothered to download a new plug-in, instead we have to give in and design something completely new, wouldn't it be A LOT easier for them to get the new plugin? It really is the surfer's job to keep up and for us to innovate (would be possible if we don't have to follow usability and accesibility)

Look at Jacob Neilson's site - www.useit.com - it looks like so crap! I don't think that site would attract anyone to it and he complains about the usability of games just because he finds 'em hard to play! gay!

Even worse is standardisation - some dumb designer like Neilson and his bunch of beady eye comrades TRYING to tell us how to design our site's - blue underlined links, shopping cart icon on ecommerce sites and I can't believe all of you don't get annoyed by this

I hate my name anyway - I'm gonna change it

P.S. I don't design sites intended for large audiences such as gaming sites, web design resource etc. because those damn rules set by usability idiots like Veen, Neilson kill the site - as well as the complaining of users who can't navigate around the easiest sites and I don't care for the disabled either - let them read their braile!

A designer is judged by their skillset or design skills, its stupid if they'r judged by what you said Aidan

So does anyone get annoyed by this?

[Hierophant]

It is your choice to design sites the way you see fit. However many people like myself will simply leave if you require plugins.

I won't stay at any site that requires me to download a plugin to view it. Sure I have Flash installed, Real Player and Windows Media Player installed. I have an old version of Java installed but don't visit sites that use Java because it is so slow.

When I want to play a game online that requires a lot of graphics and interactivity I would rather they use a client program instead of a lot of off the wall activeX or plugins.

Sites should be useable, accessible and work with as many browsers as possible. This is my view. You have yours.

Good Luck. Please publish your site URL's so I know which ones to avoid in the future.

[Mark T.]

Originally posted by site_designer
onion :

Depending on the circumstances on the injury, it could be that person's fault, but then if it is then we shouldn't have to design a site that suits them - think about it.

I completely disagree. It is not up to you, or us, or anyone, to decide whether or not a person is allowed to view a site. He is, like any other surfer, just one of your visitors.
By designing by such a rule, you also make sure that people that couldn't help their injury, are excluded from viewing and / or using your site.

Originally posted by site_designer
Also, many people, even with 56k modems, want to see advanced visual media like flash, quicktime etc.

Let me explain to you the simple way of giving the viewer the oppurtunity to choose whether or not he wants to see the flashbased or the htmlbased site. Quite simple and both parties are satisfied.

Originally posted by site_designer
If we design a site for disabled, then how will it attract anyone - so theres no point, unless your ecommerce and then it is different - wide audience=disabled people too

Building a site for disabled people is something totally different then making sure disabled people have the ability to view your site as well.

Originally posted by site_designer
Anyway - what is worse is that surfers can't even be bothered to download a new plug-in, instead we have to give in and design something completely new, wouldn't it be A LOT easier for them to get the new plugin? It really is the surfer's job to keep up and for us to innovate (would be possible if we don't have to follow usability and accesibility)

Okay, imagine me, working on my pc from the stone age, because I can't afford the high-tech pc my neighbour has, watching a fully flashbased site. Do you mind me not wanting to download the flash-plugin, because downloading it will take me more than half an hour and viewing a site with it will mean I can see like one site per day.

Originally posted by site_designer
Look at Jacob Neilson's site - www.useit.com - it looks like so crap! I don't think that site would attract anyone to it and he complains about the usability of games just because he finds 'em hard to play! gay!

I looked at it and yes, the site could use a redesign, but so what. The design of a site means much, but not everything, and I think that Jacob Neilson's site will have it's fair share of visitors as well. If he wanted more, the site would have looked different, don't you think?

Originally posted by site_designer
Even worse is standardisation - some dumb designer like Neilson and his bunch of beady eye comrades TRYING to tell us how to design our site's - blue underlined links, shopping cart icon on ecommerce sites and I can't believe all of you don't get annoyed by this

Okay, tomorrow you go to the supermarket, and you want to buy five things. A cucumber, which costs $1,-, a tomato which costs 5 pound, a banana which costs you 200 lire, a fish, costing 7 guilders and a bread costing 100 yen. Do you really think you would go through the bother of recalculating everything back to your countries currency? What if you have to pay in francs, that will really make you do some calculations won't it.
Because it is easier for the customer, the prices are in the same currency, which is called standarisation. Because it is much more easier surfing the web, knowing a link is signified by underlined blue text, I plea for standarisation as well.

Originally posted by site_designer
I hate my name anyway - I'm gonna change it

Be my guest

Originally posted by site_designer
P.S. I don't design sites intended for large audiences such as gaming sites, web design resource etc. because those damn rules set by usability idiots like Veen, Neilson kill the site - as well as the complaining of users who can't navigate around the easiest sites and I don't care for the disabled either - let them read their braile!

You are not obligated to follow the rules, so why even bother, right?
You are really going out of line here.

Originally posted by site_designer
A designer is judged by their skillset or design skills, its stupid if they'r judged by what you said Aidan

What Aidan pointed out, are the most regular design skills I know, so aren't you a bit contradictive?

Originally posted by site_designer
So does anyone get annoyed by this?

If you haven't noticed: most of the people get annoyed by you, and if that was your plan, yes.

[site_designer]

Ok

So I've stepped out of line and have got annoyed but has anyone read the usability issue of a magazine for creative professionals called cre@te? The backpage, called SACREDCOWS is what inspired me for the post.

I don't mind developing a usable and accesible site and I can, but then the site loses its "pull" factor, so two versions have to be made which is a hassle. And anyway, it isn't hard to design a usable and accesible site because all your designing is a site with tables, some text in it, a logo oh and maybe coloured tables.

Sorry for the stepping out of line thing - this was just supposed to be a post to share views on the issue.

[Saz]

Wanting to share views on a subject is ok, even when people differ greatly in their opions. Let's face it, if we all thought the same, life would be pretty dull. However, I think what immediately put people's backs up was your comment about the disabled being freaks. IMO, that immediately set this thread up for one big argument instead of a discussion.

[hillsy]

And anyway, it isn't hard to design a usable and accesible site because all your designing is a site with tables, some text in it, a logo oh and maybe coloured tables.

Maybe, more likely not. That seems like something of an oversimplification (why am I not surprised??)

Anyway the real trick is to design something useable, accessible and catchy. That's "good design". And it can be done. If you're having trouble with it, there's plenty of helpful people hereabouts

Of course, if you are only aiming for a limited audience anyway, go right ahead. For example, I do lots of intranet design where the only browser I have to worry about is IE5.5. Crap Netscape workarounds, worries about Flash plugins and even download times are not really important. Or if you're doing a Flash authoring site, perhaps you only want Flash-enabled browsers to access it. On the other hand, Amazon.com would be stupid to subscribe to your theory of web design.

Technology is like any design choice. You balance the pros and cons, then use it or don't use it. Useability is another story though. I can't think of any situation where you'd want to compromise that.

[Nicky]

You shouldn't associate accessibility solely with the disabled community! Whilst making a site accessible WILL aid the blind user to visit it, by default you are opening your website to a whole variety of other types of users too.

All my websites are accessible I don't consider them to be a bunch of tables with a logo and some text!

[mad-onion]

Site_Designer, what angered me, and alot of others, was your linking of disablity with freak (technically you are correct, however i dont think you were using the purest meaning of freak). Your implication also that people who do not have the latest plugins are disabled freaks is also over the line!

Either you are incredibly stupid or incredibly arrogant! I am yet to decide which is the case...

[delemtri]

Originally posted by site_designer
Look at Jacob Neilson's site - www.useit.com - it looks like so crap! I don't think that site would attract anyone to it and he complains about the usability of games just because he finds 'em hard to play! gay!

I don't think it looks that bad, and it loads real quick. And the reason the usability of the game was an issue was because it was being used as a marketing tool for the movie AI.

Originally posted by site_designer
Even worse is standardisation - some dumb designer like Neilson and his bunch of beady eye comrades TRYING to tell us how to design our site's - blue underlined links, shopping cart icon on ecommerce sites and I can't believe all of you don't get annoyed by this

So giving advice about what one thinks is good design is criminal now, is it?

Originally posted by site_designer
P.S. I don't design sites intended for large audiences such as gaming sites, web design resource etc. because those damn rules set by usability idiots like Veen, Neilson kill the site - as well as the complaining of users who can't navigate around the easiest sites and I don't care for the disabled either - let them read their braile!

I'm going to refrain from commenting on "let them read their braille" and merely say obviously you don't design sites intended for large audiences because you have no respect for the people who are visiting your sites.

[Aidan Bahta]

As hillsy said, making a site accessible and looking good is good design, or at least I think so.

You may know everything there is to know about Dreamweaver, and be a Flash expert. But if you don't care about accessibility, you aren't a good designer IMO. Making nice-looking sites does not mean you are a good designer.

[Anarchos]

Originally posted by hillsy

Of course, if you are only aiming for a limited audience anyway, go right ahead. For example, I do lots of intranet design where the only browser I have to worry about is IE5.5. Crap Netscape workarounds, worries about Flash plugins and even download times are not really important.

Man you're so lucky. I work at IBM and everyone on the intranet has NS 4.7, ugh.

[hillsy]

D'oh

And I used to think I was badly off when we still had some users running IE 4. Guess I don't know how lucky I am...

On a more serious note, intranet design (where you know resolution and browser) always highlights the shortcomings of the WWW for me. None of this check-it-in-nine-different-browsers-to-make-sure-it-works. Want to access the DOM? Do it! Want to use CSS for everything? Go right ahead. Maybe not with NS 4

One thing I have to watch is that when I go back to Internet work, I haven't gotten lazy with compatibility testing....

[dekuro]

Originally posted by site_designer
And anyway, it isn't hard to design a usable and accesible site because all your designing is a site with tables, some text in it, a logo oh and maybe coloured tables.

isn't your page exactly this way?

[TheOriginalH]

Originally posted by site_designer
well?

It is up to us how we design our sites and it is the user's job to keep up by getting new plugins when neccesary. If we make our sites usable and accesible to some disabled freak, then our site's will be text based!

TROLL.

The disabled freak comment leaves me in no doubt that you are a little intellectually challenged. As such I can completely understand how difficult it would be for you to grasp the concept of the consumer. Perhaps there aren't enough business development sites out there that are accessible to your sort. - but then why should they bother. If they designed their sites for the lowest common denominator (you) then all business sites would be like this.

H

[mad-onion]

Originally posted by dekuro


isn't your page exactly this way?

Furthermore your site shows a shocking resemblance layout wise to good ol' Jacob Neilson's site!