|
|
Posted by Travis Newbury on 12/09/06 13:33
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> 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.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|