Re: Critique of Non-Profit Society site

Sorry Lauri, but give Karen a break! She agrees with you and is 
trying to garner support to convince her colleague of same (at least 
this is my understanding).

Btw, validation service url is: <http://validator.w3.org>  [no 'c'].

Karen, imho, design and useability/function are inextricably linked. 
But try telling that to a non-believer! Before you go banging your 
head on a wall, try to find out your "designer's" real concerns. If 
she has a personal agenda, cloaked behind "functionality" issues, 
then you will not succeed in trying convince her that good design is 
functional. If her concerns are legitimately founded, than don't let 
her blow you off or stone wall you. Ask her to give you specifics on 
what she wants to accomplish from a useability standpoint, and then 
work that into your argument. Also if your serious about wanting 
change, than research the hotly debated topic of design vs. 
useability on the web. Try to see the site from her point of view, 
and than try to work in your design ideas collaboratively [if 
poossible?].

If you think this will be useful to you, I can email you links to the 
topic, useability vs. design.

Best luck,

Leslie

At 4:11 PM +0200 10/29/00, Lauri V=E4in wrote:
>Karen,
>
>I don't like this site one bit! (Nothing personal)
>
>Lets start with frames...
>         1. They're relatively inaccessible
>         2. They're useless on this site, it could be done without them
>         3. It looks like on of those sites "Look I can do frames too, I'm =
so
>cool"
>     Well, at least it has a noframes tag.
>
>
>Lets continue with the navigation frame...
>         1. The java applets as buttons really aren't needed, gifs would do=
 the
>job (some people can't view Java applets and navigation shouldn't be disabl=
ed
>
><snip>
>
>Yours,
>Lauri



>At 1:27 PM -0700 10/28/00, Andarko's Mate wrote:
>>I'm hoping someone can help me with this.
>>
>>The professional group I belong to has a web presence.  It's not a good
>>one unfortunately, and I have spoken to the designer about it.  Changes
>>were suggested and options offered but the designer has stated my
>>comments were of 'a cosmetic nature only and not important to the
>>function of the site.' 
>>
>>I disagree with the designers comments, and would like to present her
>>with more specifics regarding the problems with our site. 
>>
>>The color scheme used is very hard on the eyes, there is a lack of
>>consistancy from page to page, and the graphics (clip-art) make the site
>>appeared dated and unprofessional.  There are other problems as well
>>that become evident once you visit the site. 
>>
>>The site in question is located at http://www.ocularist.org
>>
>>Please, all comments would be greatly appreciated.  With opinons other
>>than my own, I may be able to convince our designer I am not just
>>blowing smoke.
>>
>>Thank you,
>>Karen

-

                                                          ::
                                                          ::
   Leslie Berrie :  Wholespace.com
   (e) leslie(at)wholespace.com (t) 312.664.4424 (f) 312.664.4423
=2E.........................................................................=
=2E...
                                                          ::
                                                           :::
                                                            ::::
                                                              ::::
                                                            ::::
                                                           :::
                                                          ::
                                                          ::
                                                           ::
                                                            :

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA