RE: Front Pages

At 05:26 p.m. 08/28/98 -0500, Byer, Mark wrote:
>Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>As a strong advocate of universal accessibility, I don't know how you
>>can become _more_ than that!  What exactly is "more" than universal
>>accessibility?  Are you going to argue that exclusionary design
>>practices are some how "much more than" inclusionary desigh?

>Yes, it must be very plesant up there in your Idyll world where everyone has
>the time and money to produce multiple versions of a web site for HTML 3.2,
>HTML 4.0, Java-enabled, text-only, flash-enabled, braille-enabled, ad
>nauseatum.

I'll ask you to kindly not slam on the name of my company in your
replies to me.  Disagree with what I've said, but please, leave the
_name_ of Idyll Mountain out of your argument, since that seems far
too much like a personal slam.

I'd also appreciate it if you'd avoid strawmen, as I don't recall
ever saying that I design multiple versions of a web site, and in
fact, I definitely _don't_ endorse that method for making a site.

>But the some rest of us live in a real world where "universal
>accessibility" means designing for the lowest common denominator.

No, that's not the real world.  If you believe that "universal
accessibility" means _just_ "lowest common denominator", then you
probably need to take my online class. :)  (Hey, signups close
on Monday, enroll now!)

Universal accessibility does _not_ mean lowest common denominator.

>In this
>case universal accessibility is restrictive and "less" than what is desired.

In what way?  Give an example?

>That is especially true in the sites I develop. They are corporate sites for
>very targeted audiences. In almost every case I couldn't give a rats ass
>about universal accessibility because I KNOW exactly who is browsing my site
>and I can design specifically for that target.  So yes, to exclude the
>text-only browser, or even the HTML 3.2 browser gives me much more
>flexibility from a design standpoint.

Are you designing for an Intranet site, then?  Can you give some
specifics of these types of audiences, for whom usability and
accessibility don't matter?

>I will, however concede the point that it is POSSIBLE to design any site to
>meet all design goals without sacrificing accessibility, but only at
>increased time and cost.

Not that much increased time and cost, and in fact, often the most
expensive parts of a website are those which _decrease_ the overall
usability, not increase it.

A little consideration for accessibility and usability concerns goes
a long way; most web designers, though, are too ignorant to know
this, and too stubborn to admit they don't know.  So of course it's
"hard" and "difficult" and "time-consuming", but they've got loads
of time for the "flashy" stuff.

Am I right or am I wrong?

>Yes, my business may represent a special case, but
>the world's full of special cases.

Tell us more about this business of yours, please?  It's fascinating
to find one where the usability of your site is not a factor at all.

>Now we're getting somewhere! You're first message suggested that in all
>cases, without exception, splash pages were pointless and worthless. Now you
>admit that there are at least some that do have a point. (and maybe even
>have merit?)

Feel free to attempt to prove this one, if you like.  Naturally,
all generalizations are wrong, but when we're talking "theory",
you can usually state general rules without saying something like
"unless you're one of the few rare designers who can make it
work under limited circumstances."

The problem with saying that, of course, is that _everyone_ who
reads that will think, "oh! I'm one of those designers!" and "oh!
my circumstances warrant that!"

They may not all be wrong.  You clearly think you fall into this
category, or a similar one as regards accessibility, since your
circumstances warrant ignoring accessibility considerations.  You
may be right in fact!  Or, you may just be one of the people who
will assume everything they do is the exception to the rule.

I can't tell, not knowing your situation -- nor does it really
matter for a "theory" discussion.

If you like, you can assume, for ANYONE'S statements, that there's
an implied "...except when applied to _<fill in your name here>_".
I avoid that myself. :)

>No, I don't believe this is why people surf the web. But I do not target
>surfers, I target a specific audiences and I am attempting to illicit a
>particular response from those audiences. The web sites we produce for our
>clients are very effective at achieveing the response we are looking for.
>Last year we developed a web site for the Schwab Institutional's Impact '98
>Conference. It resulted in a record number of attendees. So much so that
>registration was turned off two weeks before the conference. The site was
>recognized in the Wall Street Journal as an example of excellent web design.
>IT HAD A SPLASH PAGE KYNN!

Wow, then splash pages must be good for everyone use?

Come on, man.  Just because some site, wins some award, and accomplishes
the goals of the site -- that does _not_ serve as a general endorsement
of every single element involved in the design of the site.

Hey, I had a site, that on one page, used <BLINK> (hey, I've since
recovered), and _it_ won an award!  Does that mean that everyone should
scatter <BLINK> all over their pages?  No, Mark.

I'm glad you won an award, but it's possible you won it _despite_
your splash page, not _because_ of it.  Isn't it, Mark?

>I've never once heard a single person say they have problems "getting it
>up." So all this hype about Viagra must be a great big conspiracy, hunh?
>It's difficult to establish a logical relationship solely on the absence of
>data.

Wow, interesting example.  I've heard a _lot_ about male impotence.
What am I reading that you're not?

>Sorry, my fault, I thought the topic was spalsh pages not access times. I'll
>try to pay more attention.

That would be a relief!  Then I wouldn't have to do things like
point out that extraneous splash pages do indeed affect access
time and usability.

>See my notes above about Schwab. I'd call that a success.

URL please?

>In my opinion I tend to agree. But that doesn't mean either one of us are
>right.

Sure it does.  I'm right.

(What, in a discussion forum, where we're debating theory of web
design, we're supposed to sit around saying "I believe _<this>_,
but hey, I don't think I'm right"??)

--
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn(at)idyllmtn.com>             http://www.idyllmtn.com/~kynn/
Chief Technologist & Co-Owner, Idyll Mountain Internet; Fullerton, California
For your user-defined stylesheet: .GeoBranding { display: none ! important; }

HWG hwg-theory mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA