[thechat] rebel without a clause

Andy Warwick mailing.lists at creed.co.uk
Tue Oct 29 16:43:01 CST 2002


On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 04:40 PM, Tony Crockford wrote:

> I'm feeling grouchy today, someone tell me that there are web sites out
> there that are "good" in terms of accessibility, browser compatibility
> etc and still "good" to look at....

And that, IMHO, is the crux of the matter in one paragraph; how to
integrate two requirements that can often feel like opposing ends of
the spectrum.

A couple of years ago there was a documentary series on UK television
called "Designs on...†", where each week they'd follow the renowned
products designers Richard Seymour and Dick Powell* as they
'redesigned' a common item that hadn't seen any major advancements for
years.

One particular episode they worked with a UK manufacturer of urinals,
and for the whole program came across this very issue. They spent a lot
of time re-engineering the toilet, adding design features such as water
flushing from the lid rather than the bowl, or adding a lip at the back
of the seat to cater for men's standing position and subsequent lack of
aim. Meanwhile, the Head of Design at the manufacturer concerned,
considered 'design' to be nothing less -- and nothing more -- than the
'twiddly bits' and greek-style flourishes on the porcelain castings.

No matter how hard they tried to make the point that 'design' was a
combination of engineering, problem-solving, finding a solution that
made the consumers' use of the product easier or better, the 'client'
could not get past the idea that design was all eye-candy that made the
sale, and anything else was too different and too unsafe for the
marketplace. The final result was a bathroom suite that simply looked
different to others on the market, yet didn't have any of the
revolutionary additions that would have made it stand out as something
really revolutionary. In the end, the 'eye-candy design' won over the
'usability design'.

It made for compulsive -- and thought-provoking -- TV. In the end, no
matter how much as a consumer I'd love to have seen a toilet bowl that
didn't have a rim in which limescale and dirt could gather, the
manufacturer simply wanted a product that worked the same as everyone
else's, just looked a little different. Anything else would have been
too hard a sell for the general public.

Coming back on topic, it's often hard to convince a client that a
usable and accessible design is worth the extra expense, because they
are not a consumer of the product; all they really want is something
that looks very different to what they currently have, and gives that
fleeting, visceral feeling that the site has been 'designed' because it
uses a font they saw on the front of a style magazine. As the client is
often a non-user of the site, that's often the only definition the word
'design' has to them. To a user -- whether disabled or not -- the
functionality is often more important than the color-scheme or the
screen layout.

 From personal experience, I order groceries online using the 'disabled'
site at <http://www.tesco.com/access>, rather than the site at
<http://www.tesco.com/>. I'm not disabled, blind, have any
special-needs, or am browsing on a low-spec machine. But by using the
graphic-light, accessible interface I can do a shop in 20 minutes
rather than 40. That, then, is a usable design for my requirements. The
end result would be the same if I used the 'pretty' interface, but it
is not as efficient for grocery shopping. If -- on the other hand -- I
was browsing for gifts, I would use the graphic-heavy interface, as
that would be more efficient for that purpose (I could see what the
gift looked like...).

> Are we taking accessibility too seriously?  Why can't I have large
> scale
> images in new windows, so that the user can have them all on screen at
> the same time to compare with the one window full of text that goes
> with
> them?

If that's the requirement of the site, I'd say go for it; but be aware
of the compromises you are taking by doing so, and offer an alternative
if your consumers desire or require it. At the end of the day, a
blind-user is not going to get the same impact from a art-based site as
a sighted viewer. But if you can offer him some alternative descriptive
text and not simply exclude him, he's going to appreciate it more than
the gallery down the e-mall that simply locks the virtual door on him
by demanding he use the latest browser. And every blind person has
plenty of sighted friends that he'll give favorable reports to, who
might just buy that $5000 piece of art.

The real reward in our business comes from a clients (and designers)
that understand and appreciate that the best results come from a
considered and integrated combination of accessibility and front-end
visuals. Each has to feed off the other, and help guide the consumer --
the site visitor -- to achieve their goals in the most relaxed, easy
and pleasurable manner. Sitting at one end of the spectrum and spouting
"I'm right and your wrong" does neither camp any good. The art is in
knowing which aspect of 'design' you are talking about, and bringing
someone with opposing view into the golden middle ground.

Andy W

†
http://offthetelly.users.btopenworld.com/reviews/gold/designsonyour.htm
* http://www.seymourpowell.com - a flash site with a splash screen of
all things :)




More information about the thechat mailing list