Posted by Chaddy2222 on 12/09/06 13:52

Travis Newbury wrote:
> 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.
Very true.

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.
Yes, I agree. I think it's just that those items such as Flash tend to
get looked down on, due to not being used in a good (or proper way) on
comercial websites. Excluding entertainment and music sites.

>
> > 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...
Yes, my point exactly.

>
> > 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.
Well, sites like Cartoon Network are the exception, they can get away
with doing what they do as they aim at a specific target marget
(Children in this case) who are a dam hard audience to keep entertained
at the best of times. They do like a lot of interaction though.
I could not think of many comercial sites (wanting to promote a service
or sell a product, I doubt that same design would work for them. I
guess it's knowing what works and what does not and useing that to some
kind of an advantage.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

[Back to original message]