E-mail List Archives
Thread: web site to review
Number of posts in this thread: 25 (In chronological order)
From: Robin Brunner
Date: Wed, Aug 19 2009 11:20AM
Subject: web site to review
No previous message | Next message →
Please, if you have time, review this website for usability and accessibility.
www.ecc-cr.net
I have used the WAVE tool.
General and specific comments are welcome.
Many thanks for your time and attention.
Robin Switzer Brunner
CompuPlace Director
601 Second Ave SE #3
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401-1305
319-362-4284
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.ecc-cr.net
From: Patrick Burke
Date: Wed, Aug 19 2009 11:35AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Hmm, some interesting variations in browser/screenreader behavior.
Using Jaws 10, Firefox 3.5, IE7.
The Skipnav link works fine in IE, but doesn't do anything in
Firefox. (Is this a known Ff bug, anyone?)
Also, the way the H3 tags are applied, the entire page, from the new
address announcement to the end, is reported as H3 (IE7) . With
Firefox, only the new address paragraph is H3 (though that still
isn't correct usage of headings). ... Ok, there are two opening
<h3>'s, & only one </h3>, so IE thinks the first one is still in effect.
Didn't find anything else on a quick first check.
Hth,
Patrick
At 10:16 AM 8/19/2009, Robin Brunner wrote:
>Please, if you have time, review this website for usability and accessibility.
>www.ecc-cr.net
>I have used the WAVE tool.
>General and specific comments are welcome.
>Many thanks for your time and attention.
>Robin Switzer Brunner
>CompuPlace Director
>601 Second Ave SE #3
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401-1305
>319-362-4284
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>www.ecc-cr.net
--
Patrick J. Burke
Coordinator
UCLA Disabilities &
Computing Program
Phone: 310 206-6004
E-mail: burke <at> ucla. edu
From: Geof Collis
Date: Wed, Aug 19 2009 12:05PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
At 01:16 PM 8/19/2009, you wrote:
>Please, if you have time, review this website for usability and accessibility.
>www.ecc-cr.net
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
Hi Robin
I have a few quick points:
1) What is "ECC Logo"? The alt text tells me nothing about it. Is it
just text? Is there images in it?
2) I'm getting all text coming up as headings with my screen reader
after "Welcome to".
3) The code isn't valid.
cheers
Geof
From: Simius Puer
Date: Wed, Aug 19 2009 12:35PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Robin
Done a quick run-through for you.
General usability:
A little padding in the left of the main content area would make it a little
easier for visual readers - text butting tight-up against colour changes can
be awkward in some instances.
A max-length for content lines should be defined. On very large screens
some content becomes very long and hard to read (especially paragraphs).
Equally, increasing line-height to around 120-130% has shown to increase
readability for the majority of sighted users..
Accessibility:
There is no real reason for the navigation to be a table...CSS controlled
text/list would be more suitable.
ECC is a pretty obvious abbreviation but it isn't expanded using <abbr> as
far as I can see. No immediately obvious explainable of ECHO.
Tables (e.g. Board of Directors) could do with a summary="" attribute
Newsletters are in PDF which are typically far less accessible than HTML (I
won't be drawn into that argument - and yes I do know the nice people from
Adobe are here) so should really be converted. Failing that they should at
least have meaningful link text. e.g:
current: "May 2009"
should really be: "May 2009 - HHM Housing Fund for Linn County and
CompuPlace Health Clinic (415kB PDF)" (note: HHM needs an <abbr="whatever">)
Meta description would be useful. Helps users of assistive techonology and
regular users alike determine more about a pages relevancy in search
results.
There is plenty of in-line styling and occasionally badly formed code - plus
use of the depreciated <b>. Validating the page shows you where most of
these are. It also highlights that attributes have not been quoted and
single part tags (e.g. <br>) have been marked up as HTML not HXTML (e.g. <br
/>).
The contact form needs some attention. It allows erroneous submissions
without warning users and upon completion simply reloads the page (a page
saying "thank you - your message has been sent" is an expected standard. Not
all fields have a <label>. The use of a table for layout does not help
much...consider switching to a CSS controlled layout.
Looks like the heading levels are a little messed up on some pages - not a
big issue, but easy enough to fix.
Bug:
The skip nav is broken, not because of anything wrong in Firefox, but simply
because you have an ID defined twice (not allowed).
Hope that helps. Have a good day!
From: Randi
Date: Wed, Aug 19 2009 3:10PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi there,
As just a basic "non-programmer" screenreader user, the site was
somewhat confusing to me. Not anything to do with headers or anything,
as I don't navigate by header. But, I couldn't tell what the company
is really until scrolling down a ways and kind of listening to all the
departments. I gather it is a non-profit, helping low income folks and
folks with disabilities? The site doesn't "flow" well, but I don't
really know how to explain why. It seemed like a lot of information is
repeated, like when its giving phone numbers, I'd hear the same
departments or what not that had been mentioned previously.
All the logos say "image" though. I use Voiceover with Leopard, Mac OS
10 and Safari. The skip to content link didn't work, but I never seem
to have luck with those; I think it might be a VO issue.
Sorry I'm not technical, but I'm just a user :)
HTH,
Randi
PS-It might be helpful to add a short description of the company at
the top of the page, so users know right off that they've found what
they're looking for.
From: Kelly Ford
Date: Wed, Aug 19 2009 3:25PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
One suggestion to add to those already given. Consider changing the page
title to reflect the location chosen from navigation. For example if I
choose contact, the page title on the resulting page should include the term
contact in some capacity. Currently the titles all seem to be the same.
Making this change helps with orientation and bookmarking.
Kelly
-----Original Message-----
From: Randi [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:11 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
Hi there,
As just a basic "non-programmer" screenreader user, the site was
somewhat confusing to me. Not anything to do with headers or anything,
as I don't navigate by header. But, I couldn't tell what the company
is really until scrolling down a ways and kind of listening to all the
departments. I gather it is a non-profit, helping low income folks and
folks with disabilities? The site doesn't "flow" well, but I don't
really know how to explain why. It seemed like a lot of information is
repeated, like when its giving phone numbers, I'd hear the same
departments or what not that had been mentioned previously.
All the logos say "image" though. I use Voiceover with Leopard, Mac OS
10 and Safari. The skip to content link didn't work, but I never seem
to have luck with those; I think it might be a VO issue.
Sorry I'm not technical, but I'm just a user :)
HTH,
Randi
PS-It might be helpful to add a short description of the company at
the top of the page, so users know right off that they've found what
they're looking for.
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 2:10AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Robin, I would personally ditch the logo image for a carefully placed CSS
background. Logos in my opinion, server no semantic purpose to non-visual
users in my opinion ... they're really just extra branding fodder when
applied to a web page, as they should accompany the company name in the
title, main heading, or meta description.
Randi, would having a meta description be enough to describe what the
company is about?
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randi
Sent: 19 August 2009 22:11
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
Hi there,
As just a basic "non-programmer" screenreader user, the site was
somewhat confusing to me. Not anything to do with headers or anything,
as I don't navigate by header. But, I couldn't tell what the company
is really until scrolling down a ways and kind of listening to all the
departments. I gather it is a non-profit, helping low income folks and
folks with disabilities? The site doesn't "flow" well, but I don't
really know how to explain why. It seemed like a lot of information is
repeated, like when its giving phone numbers, I'd hear the same
departments or what not that had been mentioned previously.
All the logos say "image" though. I use Voiceover with Leopard, Mac OS
10 and Safari. The skip to content link didn't work, but I never seem
to have luck with those; I think it might be a VO issue.
Sorry I'm not technical, but I'm just a user :)
HTH,
Randi
PS-It might be helpful to add a short description of the company at
the top of the page, so users know right off that they've found what
they're looking for.
From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 6:45AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Steven Henderson wrote:
> Robin, I would personally ditch the logo image for a carefully placed CSS
> background. Logos in my opinion, server no semantic purpose to non-visual
> users
So you're saying there's no utility in the user knowing the name of
the site they have just visited? If the logo is a link to the home
page, it MUST be semantic because it has a function. Logos are
certainly important content and should remain in content and not be
relegated to CSS backgrounds.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 7:10AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Using a logo as a link to the home page, I agree is important if you use the
logo itself as a body element.
But regarding a user knowing where they are on a given page of the internet,
I don't think that is the purpose of a logo ... that is the job of the
internet application to do that; before the visitor actually engages the
body of the page.
There is too much duplicate content and functionality between web design and
web applications ... the logo in my view is 'secondary' to the true page
identifiers, which are ultimately the page title, meta description and the
URL (outside the body of the page itself). In my opinion, this is why
they're still used to appoint the source/identity of pages in all search
engines, at least where they have been provided with the appropriate
information. Do we really need to see Sony for example in their URL, page
title, meta description, page heading AND alt attribute for a logo image?
That is just excessive waste in my opinion, because people can't decide on a
standard.
This is just my view of course, and I am happy to hear opposing reasons to
the contrary.
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: 20 August 2009 13:43
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Steven Henderson wrote:
> Robin, I would personally ditch the logo image for a carefully placed CSS
> background. Logos in my opinion, server no semantic purpose to non-visual
> users
So you're saying there's no utility in the user knowing the name of
the site they have just visited? If the logo is a link to the home
page, it MUST be semantic because it has a function. Logos are
certainly important content and should remain in content and not be
relegated to CSS backgrounds.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Randall Pope
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:30AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
I prefer not to use the logo as a function or link to the home page. Many of
the low vision who do not use screen reader often get confused in finding
the home page link while trying to point the cursor in the right place on
the logo. The opinion that I'm hearing is that they wanted a clear written
link to tell them it is the home page not having to guess where the link is.
So I would assume this would be a usability issue as many sighted people
have expressed the same opinion. To address both issues; usability and
accessibility for most people in the audience, I would:
1. Spell out the organization name instead of using the logo in the <h1>
tags.
2. Use the logo as part of the background when styling it in CSS.
Of course others may disagree, I prefer to stick with the audience
preference than the industrial standard of web designing.
With Warm Regards,
Randall "Randy" Pope
American Association of the Deaf-Blind
Website: http://www.aadb.org
301 495-4402 VP/TTY
301 495-4403 Voice
301 495-4404 Fax
AIM: RandyAADB
Want to keep up with the latest news in the Deaf-Blind Community? Consider
subscribing to the monthly newsletter, "AADB Today" at http://aadb.org. It's
free and AADB membership is not required.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jared Smith
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:43 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Steven Henderson wrote:
> Robin, I would personally ditch the logo image for a carefully placed CSS
> background. Logos in my opinion, server no semantic purpose to non-visual
> users
So you're saying there's no utility in the user knowing the name of
the site they have just visited? If the logo is a link to the home
page, it MUST be semantic because it has a function. Logos are
certainly important content and should remain in content and not be
relegated to CSS backgrounds.
Jared Smith
WebAIM
From: Stephan Wehner
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 10:45AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Robin Brunner< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Please, if you have time, review this website for usability and accessibility.
> www.ecc-cr.net
Well, I am quite impressed that this mailing list is available for
such useful feedback.
I have a site I would really like to get reviewed (not now, but in the future).
It's commercial however. So I wanted to ask whether it is ok to ask
for feedback for that as well?
Stephan
> I have used the WAVE tool.
> General and specific comments are welcome.
> Many thanks for your time and attention.
> Robin Switzer Brunner
> CompuPlace Director
> 601 Second Ave SE #3
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401-1305
> 319-362-4284
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.ecc-cr.net
>
From: Robin Brunner
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 3:45PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Thank you for all the comments. I'm doing what I can between clients as
your e-mails come in. It's great if suggestions keep coming! Thank you ALL
so much. As this is my first site coded from scratch, I have much to learn.
AND I REJOICE that I am not alone in my quest for accessibility. Sometimes
it can seem that way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Brunner" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 12:16 PM
Subject: [WebAIM] web site to review
Please, if you have time, review this website for usability and
accessibility.
www.ecc-cr.net
I have used the WAVE tool.
General and specific comments are welcome.
Many thanks for your time and attention.
Robin Switzer Brunner
CompuPlace Director
601 Second Ave SE #3
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401-1305
319-362-4284
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.ecc-cr.net
From: Randi
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:25PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
What is a meta whatever? Ha sorry, it was mentioned in a previous
message, someone asked me if a meta something would be a good enough
description? I lose the message among all the messages though.
Randi
From: Webb, KerryA
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 4:40PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Randi asked:
> What is a meta whatever? Ha sorry, it was mentioned in a previous
> message, someone asked me if a meta something would be a good enough
> description? I lose the message among all the messages though.
>
Do you mean a META Description tag?
Kerry
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Randi
Date: Thu, Aug 20 2009 5:30PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't know, someone mentioned it in relation to the image alt tag I
believe, in discussion about the logos?
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 2:40AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
That was me, Randi.
I wondered if meta description was a good enough place to 'write' about the
company, instead of in the alt attribute of the logo ... so as to avoid the
issue of whether it should be in it or not. For screen reader users I was
thinking, maybe even brail users?
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randi
Sent: 21 August 2009 00:26
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
I don't know, someone mentioned it in relation to the image alt tag I
believe, in discussion about the logos?
From: Simius Puer
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 4:25AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
2009/8/20 Stephan Wehner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> I have a site I would really like to get reviewed (not now, but in the
> future).
>
> It's commercial however. So I wanted to ask whether it is ok to ask
> for feedback for that as well?
...there are no restrictions (as far as I'm aware - anyone read all the
t&c?) and certainly no harm in asking.
We are all here to try and promote/further accessibility so I'd say the
commercial aspect is pretty irrelevant. It's up to the individuals who make
up the community if they decide to help.
2009/8/21 Steven Henderson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> I wondered if meta description was a good enough place to 'write' about the
> company, instead of in the alt attribute of the logo ... so as to avoid the
> issue of whether it should be in it or not. For screen reader users I was
> thinking, maybe even brail users?
>
Meta description is an excellent place for a company description. Before a
user even gets to the site this information will improve the quality of
search engine results (better SEO) and also appear in on the search page,
thus allowing users to select sites better - a major bonus for usability and
accessibility.
However, the meta description must be kept short (not least as it is
truncated by all search engines) so it should really only be a very concise
summary - not really a replacement for the traditional "about us" page.
Also, it never hurts to have the very first paragraph on your homepage
actually say what you do ;)
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 5:00AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
I'm in agreement, Simius.
Regarding the original discussion of placing the company name/what they do
in a heading img attribute, I think page title or meta description should
clearly identify who the company is (Ecumenical Community Center for
example) and what they do (provide humanitarian care & services for
example). Heading 1 should be unique to each page in my opinion, as it comes
second to who the company actually is (which should be retained in the URL,
page title, description of every page as often does anyways, for good
reason). The company name and description does not need blurbing in the body
copy of every page, least not as the main heading, as this should be focused
on explaining the most important think ... what this 'page' is about, and
not who the company is on each page.
Just to be clear, this is just my view which is already reflected by search
engines. If you want to find someone who provides humanitarian care, you
search a search engine for 'humanitarian care' to find a heading called
'Ecumenical Community Center' with the description for the home page which
reads 'Humanitarian care & services' and the url
ecumenicalcommunitycenter.net/humanitariancare.html in the search results
for example, which prompts you to click the link and read about humanitarian
care ... if you want to know who the company name is, that should already be
in the URL as that is good branding, maybe in the page title too - that
should be evident before you even read the body copy, and if you want to
know what other products or services they provide or even more about the
company, you click on a link in the menu (that is what a menu is for
afterall).
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Simius Puer
Sent: 21 August 2009 11:23
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
2009/8/20 Stephan Wehner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> I have a site I would really like to get reviewed (not now, but in the
> future).
>
> It's commercial however. So I wanted to ask whether it is ok to ask
> for feedback for that as well?
...there are no restrictions (as far as I'm aware - anyone read all the
t&c?) and certainly no harm in asking.
We are all here to try and promote/further accessibility so I'd say the
commercial aspect is pretty irrelevant. It's up to the individuals who make
up the community if they decide to help.
2009/8/21 Steven Henderson < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> I wondered if meta description was a good enough place to 'write' about
the
> company, instead of in the alt attribute of the logo ... so as to avoid
the
> issue of whether it should be in it or not. For screen reader users I was
> thinking, maybe even brail users?
>
Meta description is an excellent place for a company description. Before a
user even gets to the site this information will improve the quality of
search engine results (better SEO) and also appear in on the search page,
thus allowing users to select sites better - a major bonus for usability and
accessibility.
However, the meta description must be kept short (not least as it is
truncated by all search engines) so it should really only be a very concise
summary - not really a replacement for the traditional "about us" page.
Also, it never hurts to have the very first paragraph on your homepage
actually say what you do ;)
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 6:00AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
At 04:37 AM 8/21/2009, you wrote:
>That was me, Randi.
>
>I wondered if meta description was a good enough place to 'write' about the
>company, instead of in the alt attribute of the logo ... so as to avoid the
>issue of whether it should be in it or not. For screen reader users I was
>thinking, maybe even brail users?
How does that help us screen reader users?
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 7:20AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
That is what I was speculating on, Geof.
I thought a screen reader user would identify the page via a search engine
result (page title and meta description) or maybe even via the browser's
title first (again, the page title, and maybe even via the URL itself), to
determine whether the site was appropriate for them. Maybe I am just
perceiving that screen readers deliver content sequentially because of their
focused nature, but I thought screen reading software would provide the most
relevant content 'once' the user had determined if the page was relevant to
their search query. That is why I feel the body should contain content
relevant to the query itself, as opposed to who authors it (that can always
be in the body of course, I must agree, but not at the top of the page).
Some comments or feedback on others thoughts would certainly help. I don't
want to apply nor encourage my view if it is actually detrimental to screen
reader users.
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Geof Collis
Sent: 21 August 2009 12:26
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
At 04:37 AM 8/21/2009, you wrote:
>That was me, Randi.
>
>I wondered if meta description was a good enough place to 'write' about the
>company, instead of in the alt attribute of the logo ... so as to avoid the
>issue of whether it should be in it or not. For screen reader users I was
>thinking, maybe even brail users?
How does that help us screen reader users?
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 7:55AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Steve
Personally I use Google and when I do searches it is usually the
first line that Google gives me that determines if I click on the
link or not, I've never stopped to think from what source on the site
it is getting it's information.
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Steven Henderson
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 8:20AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Geof,
I am still assuming then, that you would prefer to read something pertaining
to the query you searched for in the first line? For example a title about
the service you are looking for, rather than the company name!? And like
wise, the same when you access the page?
If you wanted to know about the source/company associated with the
information you find, would you not search for that in the menu or elsewhere
on the page AFTER you have found the content you were interested in?
I am just trying to elaborate whether you feel (as I do) that company
name/source is information in it's own right and shouldn't be the most
prominent content of all pages of your results, UNLESS that is what you
specifically searched for ... we're talking quality of search results
really, which I feel is something that has to be the real focus for web
design; what does the user want to know about first, not what a visual user
expects to see first.
What was suggested was that a screen reader user wants to read about the
company name first when they come to a page. I just disagreed, and believe
that may be useful for visual users who can choose to ignore that
information until they deem it useful, but screen reader users should be
thought about more carefully. Afterall, we can still place the logo further
up the page for visual users without it taking president for screen readers.
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Geof Collis
Sent: 21 August 2009 14:55
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] web site to review
Hi Steve
Personally I use Google and when I do searches it is usually the
first line that Google gives me that determines if I click on the
link or not, I've never stopped to think from what source on the site
it is getting it's information.
cheers
Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Geof Collis
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 8:40AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
>Hi Steven
>
>If I'm doing a search for a particular company then I'll enter it in
>the search engine, otherwise it is information and services that I
>am looking for that determines my search query, once I get to the
>site if I am interested I'll find out the company contact info.
>Logos are usuallly meningless to me because the alt text is not
>descriptive, might as well quote it out for all it tells me
>
>I also dont care about the logo being a link to the home page, I
>much prefer a link that says "home" or "home page", I find it much
>more intuative and easy to find using the JAWS drop down menu.
>
>cheers
>
>Geof
Editor
Accessibility News
www.accessibilitynews.ca
Accessibility News International
www.accessibilitynewsinternational.com
From: Randi
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 9:15AM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | Next message →
Hi Steve,
Yeah, I don't know, since I'm not a developer, where the description
would be, the way you described it. I just know that when I went to
this site, I couldn't tell what it was, so maybe a mission statement
or something near the top of the page. But yes, if I am specifically
searching for something, I'll know what kind of site I am visiting, so
I guess maybe the point is a little moot. In this instance, since I
was looking at the site, I didn't know what I was going to look at.
Don't get me started on Google though, I'm having problems with
Google, and might start a thread here about it.
As far as bringing commercial sites here for testing, I say go for it,
because I think for me, about eighty percent of sites I visit is
because I'm interested in their product. If its not accessible, I miss
out, and they lose a customer.
Randi
From: Stephan Wehner
Date: Fri, Aug 21 2009 2:40PM
Subject: Re: web site to review
← Previous message | No next message
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Simius Puer< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> 2009/8/20 Stephan Wehner < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>> I have a site I would really like to get reviewed (not now, but in the
>> future).
>>
>> It's commercial however. So I wanted to ask whether it is ok to ask
>> for feedback for that as well?
>
>
> ...there are no restrictions (as far as I'm aware - anyone read all the
> t&c?) and certainly no harm in asking.
>
> We are all here to try and promote/further accessibility so I'd say the
> commercial aspect is pretty irrelevant. It's up to the individuals who make
> up the community if they decide to help.
>
Ok thanks. That's excellent.
Stephan