Posted by Travis Newbury on 12/09/06 13:43

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> Sure it can. The web was originally designed that way and for that
> purpose. I include images as content, of course.

A car was originally designed with a hand crank to. But things evolve
over the years.

> >> Because for the majority (obviously not you personally) of the visitors
> >> they LIKE it presented in that manner.
>
> And how do you know this? What studies have you done and why do you
> think your studies are better than other studies that have shown
> otherwise?

No study needed. As these types of sites get fancier, the visitors and
revenue increase.

> >>YOU are not the only visitor.
> >> Sometimes what you like, is NOT what the majority of the visitors like.
> >> (And visa-versa sometimes what I like is not what the majority of the
> >> visitors like)
>
> Once again, what's your evidence of this? And is it the majority of
> visitors you should be catering to or the majority of potential
> visitors? Don't you want to have more visitors?

Visitor numbers and revenue both increase with the pizazz. Do you not
get there are people that actually like this kind of thing? The search
for it. Not everyone wants a plain accessable. Some want flash menus,
flash interaction video, color, fun, interactiveness. And if we could
get the same functionality from html and css we would. But you can't.
So we use the tools available to get the job done, and fill a need of
the online community.EVEN if that need is not your need

> >> Or not. It completely depends on each particular site. One size does
> >> NOT fit all on the web.
> Which is why fixed width sites are basicaly bad. Fluid sites that work
> in almost all browsers (including I.E.) are perfectly possible and even
> easy if you understand CSS and semantic html coding.

Who cares. These sites don't care if they work in every browser and
that everyone can see them. They are not going to increase their
revenue by making the site more accessible. They are going to make
more revenue by making it fancier. But using the latest and greatest
Flash features. THAT is what brings in the crowds for these sites.
These sites provide a service to a specific type of on line user. And
we do it very well. You just don't happen to be on of the users they
want to cater too. If you were, then you would love the site.

> >> They can't see them. Oh well, sucks to be those people. But if the
> >> layout of the site brings in more money, then it is the right way to
> >> go.
>
> And once again, what's your evidence for this? How can it bring more
> money in to purposely lock out people with the very money you want who
> happen to be visually impaired? Is their money not valuable to you?

Actually no, their money is NOT important. Or I should say the money
lost by accommodating them is more important.

If you have to ask this, then you truly don't understand how these
types sites work and there is little need to discuss further. Here is
the bottom line. For sites like this;
FANCY = REVENUE -- PLAIN = LOSS OF REVENUE. All the accessibility and
usability studies are meaningless when it comes to revenue. If it
brings in more revenue, then it is the right way to do it.

> There are such laws in various constituencies but they are rarely
> heavily enforced. I believe there have been some lawsuits filed against
> in the USA big websites by visually disabled people who find they can't
> go there. If one of them wins big, money will certainly sing a
> different tune.

And the moment they are enforced we will all lose.

[Back to original message]