E-mail List Archives
Thread: New WebAIM Site Released
Number of posts in this thread: 19 (In chronological order)
From: Jared Smith
Date: Sun, Jun 11 2006 10:30PM
Subject: New WebAIM Site Released
No previous message | Next message →
WebAIM is happy to release a new site design and new content -
http://webaim.org/
Along with the new look and feel and site structure, much of our content
has been updated and we have many new articles and resource materials.
Please take a look and pass along the news to other interested parties.
We are also introducing additional community tools, including a blog and
web-based forums. While this e-mail list will continue to function, we
invite you to also participate in our web-based forums.
We've also written an article describing many of the decisions we made
during the redesign process - http://webaim.org/articles/siteredesign/
While standards compliance and accessibility are certainly our top goals,
we're interested in improving all aspects of our site. We will continue to
update our site content and increase accessibility over time, but if you
have comments or recommendations, please post them on our blog or the
forums. And enjoy the new site and content!
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: Al Sparber
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 12:20AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
From: "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> We've also written an article describing many of the decisions we
> made during the redesign process -
> http://webaim.org/articles/siteredesign/
Looks very nice. One question-
It's mentioned that the main tabs employ background images and that if
CSS is disabled, the plain text of the tabs is visible. But if only
images are disabled, then the tabs cannot be seen because of the
indent. I don't disagree with this approach/concession, but have been
called to task in the past for using similar methods and having them
deemed inaccessible.
--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 12:50AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006, Jared Smith wrote:
> WebAIM is happy to release a new site design and new content -
> http://webaim.org/
I'm afraid my first impression is that it isn't very accessible. Too many
menus. Where do I start? A top menu, a left menu, and lists of links with
headings are essentially navigation, too. Many links are not underlined,
and links do not differ sufficiently from text by color.
_I_ am confused, and I know what webaim.org is basically about, and I can
use a graphic browser normally. How about people who have no previous idea
of the site or who have special problems in orienting themselves in a
jungle of menus and links or who cannot use a graphic browser? The main
page is all too big, too much content, too many links. It would take quite
some time to listen to it in its entirety. It doesn't fit in a browser
window even in fullscreen mode. (Need for vertical scrolling is of course
acceptable on most pages, but main pages should be viewable without
scrolling.) The red backgrounds of headings hurt my eyes.
Didn't you consider creating a prototype or a test version and ask for
comments on in this list or other public review? Sorry if you did -
somehow I missed it.
> We are also introducing additional community tools, including a blog and
> web-based forums. While this e-mail list will continue to function, we invite
> you to also participate in our web-based forums.
Aren't you splitting the discussions that way? If the forums are not
linked to each other, you will have people discussing the same topics in
different forums. There are fewer participants than a single forum would
have, and anyone who really wants to have his question answered will post
it to different forums. Issues will be discussed without knowing what's
going on elsewhere. This list hasn't been excessively active, and it would
have been a much better idea to create a good web interface to the list.
It seems that this list is getting a secondary forum, as the main page now
says: "If you have comments or questions, please post them in our blog
posting."
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 1:20AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
Jared Smith wrote:
> WebAIM is happy to release a new site design and new content -
> http://webaim.org/
Congrats...great stuff. One small question, though: do you think it
would be possible to add a few simple RewriteRule statements to the
server (sending out the appropriate 301 "moved permanently" status code)
to map old article URLs to their new location (assuming that the "slug",
e.g. "evaluatingwithfirefox" remained the same, the rule would be fairly
straightforward)?
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 2:10AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Congrats...great stuff.
Are we really looking at the same site?
> One small question, though: do you think it would be
> possible to add a few simple RewriteRule statements to the server (sending
> out the appropriate 301 "moved permanently" status code) to map old article
> URLs to their new location (assuming that the "slug", e.g.
> "evaluatingwithfirefox" remained the same, the rule would be fairly
> straightforward)?
Wait... do you mean that they broke all the links?
Checking... yes. 404. So the user gets an error message when he tries to
follow a link that used to work. This is probably the most common and most
serious single error in web site management. Tim Berners-Lee wrote about
it as early as in 1998:
http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
The page disproves all the common explanations and excuses for breaking
old URLs.
Please tell me this whole change is a bad joke that will soon be revealed
and undone, or that I'm having a bad dream.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 2:50AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
> Jukka K. Korpela
> Are we really looking at the same site?
Yes, we are.
I agree with you that the homepage is a bit dense in information,
so yes, this may need a bit of tweaking. But for some of your other
issues:
> Many links are not underlined, and links do not differ
> sufficiently from text by color.
The links which aren't underlined are all grouped in panels which
(at least to me) look fairly obviously like navigation-type panels.
Where links are intertwined with non-link text in the main content area,
they're underlined fine.
As for the colour: fair enough, that could also do with some tweaking.
> It would take quite some time to listen to it in its entirety.
Because, obviously, screen reader users passively sit back and get the
entire page read to them? I'd say this is the exception, rather than
the norm. And as the page has relevant headings, things marked up as lists,
etc, there are plenty of hooks for screen reader users to jump around
the page, orient themselves, and so forth.
> It doesn't fit in a browser window even in fullscreen mode.
> (Need for vertical scrolling is of course
> acceptable on most pages, but main pages should be viewable without
> scrolling.)
Oh dear...should be viewable without scrolling? At what resolution and
browser window size? Seems like a bit of a sweeping generalisation to me.
> The red backgrounds of headings hurt my eyes
But that would fall under "personal (aesthetic) preference", no?
So, in short: a few things may benefit from a slight after-market tweak
(and the 404 issue definitely needs to be addressed, I strongly agree with
you on that), but personally I don't think it's such a disaster.
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________
From: Tim Beadle
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 3:00AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On 12/06/06, Jukka K. Korpela < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Please tell me this whole change is a bad joke that will soon be revealed
> and undone, or that I'm having a bad dream.
Hey Jukka, why don't you tell us what you *really* think! Don't hold
back, now...
Seriously - if there are issues, can we not point them out in a
slightly more constructive way?
Tim
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 3:50AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Tim Beadle wrote:
> Seriously - if there are issues, can we not point them out in a
> slightly more constructive way?
The time for accessibility and other evaluation and constructive proposals
based on it is when a site is being designed (or redesigned). Right after
a major revamping is probably the worst time as regards to site owners'
willingness to make substantial changes. After all, they have surely done
their best - in their view of "best" (under practical limitations as seen
by them). It would be odd if they nodded and said, "oh well, it really
needs to be redesigned now, or maybe we should revert to the old design",
no matter how correct such a move might be.
So the time _would have been_ when the site was being redesigned and some
early drafts and prototypes were ready.
What I wrote is best regarded as a warning to people who design or
redesign their own sites: don't repeat all the usual mistakes.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 4:20AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Patrick Lauke wrote:
> I agree with you that the homepage is a bit dense in information,
> so yes, this may need a bit of tweaking.
"A bit" from a normal user's perspective perhaps, but the amount and
organization of content must be quite confusing to many people with
cognitive and other disabilities. Perhaps not many users of this site have
such disabilities - rather, the site is used by people who try to make
their sites more accessible to people with disabilities. But it still sets
an example, and examples teach more than articles.
> The links which aren't underlined are all grouped in panels which
> (at least to me) look fairly obviously like navigation-type panels.
To you perhaps, but is this really obvious enough to remove the default
rendering of links? After all, as I wrote, the page has excessive
navigation and _differently_ implemented navigational links. If you see
texts that are underlined and texts that aren't underlined, wouldn't you
think that the former are links and the latter aren't? It requires some
reasoning to deduce that this is not the case, and what about people who
cannot (or just won't) follow such a path of logic?
>> It would take quite some time to listen to it in its entirety.
>
> Because, obviously, screen reader users passively sit back and get the
> entire page read to them? I'd say this is the exception, rather than
> the norm.
For a main page of a site about accessibility, I don't think it would
exceptional to read all the content there when you encounter it for the
first time. Later on, when using the main page for navigation mainly and
to check latest news, how fast will this be? There is no simple main menu.
> Oh dear...should be viewable without scrolling?
Yes.
> At what resolution and browser window size?
The one that people use. Of course, "viewable without scrolling" is a
rough rule, as most good design principles are. It's not exact science but
making things comfortable most of the time and not very uncomfortable
ever. When a main page does not fit into a _full screen_ window on a
typical 17" screen with typical settings on a typical browser, and does
not even come close, then it's simply too big.
> Seems like a bit of a sweeping generalisation to me.
No, it's a good design principle. Early studied in web usability
indicated, according to Jakob Nielsen, that
"only 10% of Web users would scroll a navigation page to see any links
that were not visible in the initial display. The vast majority of users
would make their selection from those links they could see without
scrolling." http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9712a.html
As the page tells, Nielsen relatively soon relativized the issue,
but he still makes a point:
"There are still a few users who rarely scroll. Even those users who are
willing to scroll may be tempted to choose one of the initially visible
options when it seems to match their goals. Such users will never see an
even better, but invisible, choice that would have required scrolling.
Therefore, I still recommend trying to design navigation pages to make all
major choices visible without scrolling on the monitors used by the
average visitor to a site."
User behavior has changed, but not drastically. People scroll because they
have learned they have to. It is still not good design practice. Main
pages have become more and more crowded, because everything and everyone
wants its part of the sunlight on the Main Page. Yet it is simply poor
design if the main page is overfull. Essential content should fit into
the window without scrolling at least in typical full-screen viewing, and
non-essential content simply should not appear on the main page but behind links.
In information-rich sites, like webaim.org and w3.org, it might seem
proper to have lots of navigation on the main page. After all, the sites
are mostly used by experts or to-be experts who can find their way in a
maze of twisty little menus. Yet, the sites set a bad example that will be
imitated, consciously or unconsciously.
>> The red backgrounds of headings hurt my eyes
>
> But that would fall under "personal (aesthetic) preference", no?
My eyes know nothing about esthetics when they hurt. It's of course not as
bad as it could be (many site use pure red in large quantities), but it's
still unnecessary and distracting.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 4:30AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
> Jukka K. Korpela
> The time for accessibility and other evaluation and
> constructive proposals
> based on it is when a site is being designed (or redesigned).
That seems to imply that WebAIM was redesigned without any
regard for accessibility or other evaluation, which I'd posit
isn't true.
It's just that the consultation process wasn't public, possibly
because of a fear of "too many cooks" with their own personal
likes and dislikes?
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 4:50AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Patrick Lauke wrote:
>> Jukka K. Korpela
>
>> The time for accessibility and other evaluation and
>> constructive proposals
>> based on it is when a site is being designed (or redesigned).
>
> That seems to imply that WebAIM was redesigned without any
> regard for accessibility or other evaluation, which I'd posit
> isn't true.
As I wrote, people who did the redesign probably did their best, but is
was still a failure. What I wrote was a response to a question why _I_ did
not make constructive proposals. (Which I made, in fact, though
indirectly. Saying that text and link color contrast isn't sufficient is a
concrete proposal if you take it that way, even though it does not specify
particular color values.)
> It's just that the consultation process wasn't public, possibly
> because of a fear of "too many cooks" with their own personal
> likes and dislikes?
Perhaps. Maybe they'll tell us.
That would _also_ set an example - a wrong one. It would tell people that
they, too, should revamp their sites without asking the people who use
them, in fear of comments that might express even personal likes and
dislikes.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 5:00AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
> Jukka K. Korpela
> "A bit" from a normal user's perspective perhaps, but the amount and
> organization of content must be quite confusing to many people with
> cognitive and other disabilities.
Catering for users with cognitive disabilities on such an information
rich site may well require a separate type of interface altogether, with
a far heavier use of iconography for instance (depending on the severity
of the disability, even up to a "peepo" style arrangement).
> No, it's a good design principle. Early studied in web usability
> indicated, according to Jakob Nielsen,
...the master of generalisations...
> that
> "only 10% of Web users would scroll a navigation page to see
> any links
> that were not visible in the initial display.
Does this study take into account the wide variety of different web users,
different types of web site (shopping, information resource, etc)?
I'd posit that the scrolling behaviour of users will vary depending on
the goal they're trying to achieve on a site.
> >> The red backgrounds of headings hurt my eyes
> >
> > But that would fall under "personal (aesthetic) preference", no?
>
> My eyes know nothing about esthetics when they hurt. It's of
> course not as
> bad as it could be (many site use pure red in large
> quantities), but it's
> still unnecessary and distracting.
So, do we deduce from that that one should never use red because of your
particular (physical) aversion to said colour? How do you justify "unnecessary"?
Is any styling "unnecessary"? Where do we draw the line then?
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 7:50AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
> The one that people use. Of course, "viewable without
> scrolling" is a rough rule, as most good design principles
> are.
It also appears to be a very out of date rule...
http://www.uie.com/reports/scent_of_information/
Even in 1997 Nielsen began seeing that scrolling was perfectly
acceptable:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9712a.html
While I agree that it's a common bit of advice repeated by many web
developers, it doesn't appear to hold up under observation.
> Nielsen relatively soon relativized the
> issue, but he still makes a point:
>
> "There are still a few users who rarely scroll."
Yep. But there are always a few users who rarely do x, y, and z. As
such, saying that it must fit within the browser *is* a sweeping
generalization as it's based on a small handful of users (based on
decade-old research).
I agree that 'too much information' isn't a good thing. Defining 'too
much information' for a particular site and their particular user groups
is a bit more of a challenge.
> In information-rich sites, like webaim.org and w3.org, it
> might seem proper to have lots of navigation on the main
> page. After all, the sites are mostly used by experts or
> to-be experts who can find their way in a maze of twisty
> little menus. Yet, the sites set a bad example that will be
> imitated, consciously or unconsciously.
The 'scent of information' report linked to above addresses that as
well. I think it's required reading for any web developer that's been in
the business for more than 5 years. It breaks a LOT of outdated thinking
that is stuck in a lot of our heads (mine included). I provided a
synopsis of the report here:
http://mnteractive.com/archive/above-the-fold-is-obsolete-and-digibuy-is
-a-good-company/
The key item from the report in regards to this discussion is the fact
that more links are often a GOOD thing for a lot of people. The number
of links is less of an issue. Using the proper keywords in the links to
communicate to the end-user what they are clicking on is more important.
-Darrel
From: Alastair Campbell
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 8:10AM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> No, it's a good design principle. Early studied in web usability
> indicated, according to Jakob Nielsen, that
> "only 10% of Web users would scroll a navigation page to see
> any links that were not visible in the initial display.
That was from 1994, and revised in 1997. You're quote was misleading, as
he was describing what happened in 1994. For that time (still almost 10
years ago) he wrote:
"In more recent studies, we have seen that most users scroll when they
visit a long home page or a long navigation screen."
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9712a.html
In usability testing I've not seen it create an issue for a while, even
for people with screen magnifiers and other assistive devices.
By all means optimise what is 'above the fold', but please stop quoting
Neilson on this!
(Takes a deep breath ;)
Personally, I do think the IA is still overly complex, and it's
difficult to understand the relationships between the various types of
navigation (top nav, training/evaluation/Design & delivery, solutions
for, community etc.). It's mixing navigation for types of audience and
concrete concepts, which can cause problems.
Going to an external person/company is usually a good idea for
developing an IA, as it can help cut through the internal perceptions
and issues. However, as you said, it's a bit late now.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
Alastair Campbell | Director of User Experience
Nomensa Email Disclaimer:
http://www.nomensa.com/email-disclaimer.html
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 8:40AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you all for your comments, especially the constructive ones. I'll do
my best to reply to some of your comments.
> It's mentioned that the main tabs employ background images and that if
> CSS is disabled, the plain text of the tabs is visible. But if only
> images are disabled, then the tabs cannot be seen because of the
> indent.
I'm aware of this and will likely be changing it by (unfortunately) adding
an extra, empty span within the navigation to contain the background
images. We tried to avoid extraneous divs and spans where possible,
especially within the template. This case probably necessitates something
being done, though the number that browse full featured sites with
graphics off and styles enabled is very small (though not small enough for
us to neglect them).
> Too many menus. Where do I start?
I must agree that the homepage has a lot of information. We struggled
finding balance between not giving access to site information and
providing too much. Our new design homepage has fewer links and content
than our previous design, but easier access to site content areas, of
which there are more now than before. We found in our previous design that
finding content pieces took sometimes 4 or 5 clicks. Now nearly any page
is available in at most 3 clicks from the home page. We hope that the
segmentation and blocking of the navigation areas is clear. Our use of
link identification is also consistent within the blocks. If it is not,
please suggest how to make it more so.
We also recognize that a small portion of our site visitors actually enter
from the homepage. Those that do enter there were finding it difficult or
burdensome to find content and we believe we have provided mechanisms to
make it easier for them to find what they are looking for, while also
providing links to our products and services, without which, there would
be no site at all. We struggled finding this balance and hope that what is
there now will best serve the majority of our site visitors, who tend to
be more technically astute than the norm.
> Congrats...great stuff. One small question, though: do you think it
> would be possible to add a few simple RewriteRule statements to the
> server
Yep. A few document location have changed. There are some rewrite rules
there now, but many more are in the process of being written. I'm in the
process of fixing a server config file that had redirects from redesigns 4
versions ago and was quite a mess. Most of the links to popular resources
have not changed. Many links however, have changed out of necessity of
keeping the site developers sane - we went from nearly 120 directories to
around 40. In short, the old site was a management nightmare. Yes, this
breaks some rules. Rewrite rules are coming onboard quickly. It's likely
some might be lost in the shuffle.
> and links do not differ sufficiently from text by color.
Which?
> It doesn't fit in a browser window even in fullscreen mode. (Need for
> vertical scrolling is of course acceptable on most pages, but main
> pages should be viewable without scrolling.)
Unless of course there is more information to present than could be
reasonably presented without scrolling, while also maintaining a readable
line length and ample line spacing and white space. We're aware that
OPTIMALLY main pages should not scroll, but are not overly concerned that
ours does. And it is now about 20% of the height of our previous design,
something that we're quite happy with.
> Didn't you consider creating a prototype or a test version and ask for
> comments on in this list or other public review? Sorry if you did -
> somehow I missed it.
We did not solicit public feedback - can you now wonder why? :-) We did
much private testing however. As you well know, site design is not about
pleasing everybody. If it were, sites would NEVER be completed. We did a
lot of testing, received a lot of feedback - some of which was conflicting
(just like these comments are). Ultimately, we implemented what we thought
was best.
> If the forums are not linked to each other, you will have people
> discussing the same topics in different forums.
Probably. Due to the overly technical and sometime (unfortunately) elitist
tone on this e-mail list, we have, out of demand, provided the web-based
forums as an alternative. We hope both can function and flourish, perhaps
each meeting the needs of perhaps a unique audience.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 9:50AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Jared Smith wrote:
> Thank you all for your comments, especially the constructive ones. I'll do my
> best to reply to some of your comments.
I think it would have been adequate to mention who you are replying to,
i.e. who are the people whose words you quoted.
> Rewrite rules are coming onboard quickly.
I'm afraid some damage has already been done, though there can be a
recovery within a few months. When indexing robots get 404, they normally
remove the page from their database. It may take months to get back.
That's why redirects should be set first.
>> It doesn't fit in a browser window even in fullscreen mode. (Need for
>> vertical scrolling is of course acceptable on most pages, but main pages
>> should be viewable without scrolling.)
>
> Unless of course there is more information to present than could be
> reasonably presented without scrolling,
The amount of information on the main page is not something that falls
from the heaven. It's a site design decision. And it is of course the
amount of information that matters most when considering whether the page
reasonably fits in a window.
> We did not solicit public feedback - can you now wonder why? :-)
I'm afraid I do, and I find nothing amusing in it.
> As you well know, site design is not about pleasing everybody.
If that's an excuse for not asking for a review from people who use the
site, I wonder why you _now_ get involved in a discussion.
--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Al Sparber
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
From: "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Thank you all for your comments, especially the constructive ones.
> I'll do my best to reply to some of your comments.
>
>> It's mentioned that the main tabs employ background images and that
>> if
>> CSS is disabled, the plain text of the tabs is visible. But if
>> only images are disabled, then the tabs cannot be seen because of
>> the indent.
>
> I'm aware of this and will likely be changing it by (unfortunately)
> adding
> an extra, empty span within the navigation to contain the background
> images. We tried to avoid extraneous divs and spans where possible,
> especially within the template. This case probably necessitates
> something
> being done, though the number that browse full featured sites with
> graphics off and styles enabled is very small (though not small
> enough for
> us to neglect them).
Thank you. I'll be interested to see your deployment. It is a pleasing
design and overall improvement, in my opinion.
--
Al Sparber
PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
"Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling
mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that
repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday".
From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Jun 12 2006 10:20AM
Subject: Re: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | Next message →
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> We did not solicit public feedback - can you now wonder why? :-)
>
> I'm afraid I do, and I find nothing amusing in it.
Are we not now soliciting and receiving public feedback? It's not like
nothing can now be changed. I just made several changes in fact. If it
were a done project, we wouldn't have solicited feedback in about 10
different places already.
Still, if there is something that is difficult to YOU with the site, some
recommendations on how to make it better would be more useful to us than
simply saying it's all wrong and all broken. We'll consider all the
feedback we receive and make changes where we feel it is necessary.
>> As you well know, site design is not about pleasing everybody.
>
> If that's an excuse for not asking for a review from people who use the
> site, I wonder why you _now_ get involved in a discussion.
We certainly asked for and received feedback from people who use the site
- just not you.
Jared Smith
WebAIM.org
From: smithj7
Date: Wed, Jun 21 2006 11:10PM
Subject: RE: New WebAIM Site Released
← Previous message | No next message
Looks good. I discovered the change Monday morning in the mist of a
training I was doing for some staff. (I use your site frequently.) At
first I thought I typed the incorrect url, but the Webaim logo was
there. It took be only a few seconds to take a guess at where the
material was that I wanted for the training. I guessed right. I don't
think anyone figured out that I was a little confused. I'll be
exploring the new layout in more detail this weekend. The material is
very useful for training sessions. <smile>