[thelist] targeting effectively (was: navigation through form posting)

[martin.p.burns at uk.pwcglobal.com]

Memo from Martin P Burns of PricewaterhouseCoopers

-------------------- Start of message text --------------------

Absolutely Jeff - it's a question of what route you use to get to the
accessible solution and where your default is.

If your methodology is to create the whizzy, rich version first, and then
dumb down for accessibility, then of course it's going to be more work, and
you will need to cut out some of the features you've convinced yourself you
need. It's kind of like going from New York to LA and then having to go
back to take in Chicago, rather than going NY->Chicago->LA.

But there's few features which are *really* needed to convey the vast
majority of communication goals.

Saying "I need those features otherwise it won't work" is usually just a
limitation in thinking. People have managed to carry out effective
communication for many years using only black ink on dead trees within the
limitations of print technology, and research nearly always shows that
changing the creative is one of the least significant changes you can make.

And isn't that the basis of creativity anyway? Fulfilling the
communications need within practical boundaries?

So here's a better approach - design the basics first, and get them
absolutely right. Test (in a business sense) the hell out of them. Then add
the rich stuff on top as an add-on for those who can use it. That way, you
get the accessible version *without* significant cost. Who knows, when you
test the rich version against the basic one, you may discover that you
don't really get a significant ROI from it anyway.

Cheers
Martin




Subject:    RE: [thelist] targeting effectively (was: navigation through
       form posting)



><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: David Kutcher
> Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but hell, I
> educate the client in what their site statistics mean.
> When we discuss how to proceed, I tell them exactly what
> will be gained and lost by optimizing for 4.0+ browsers.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

optimizing for v4+ browsers doesn't mean you have to shut the door entirely
on pre-v4+ browsers.  it simply means it'll perform/look better for v4+
browsers.

evolt.org is optimized for v4+ browsers.  however, you can still navigate
the site, get at the content, post comments, etc. with a pre-v4+ browser.
it just doesn't look as pretty.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> I have NEVER had a client say "please make it accessible
> on text only browsers" or "yes, I would like it minus
> functionality that 1% of the users of my site will not
> be able to enjoy or will cause them an error".
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i suspect you've never had a client ask those things because of the way
you've sold them on your idea of optimization for v4+ browsers.

optimization shouldn't make a site inaccessible to text-only browsers.

optimization shouldn't cause errors for pre-v4+ browsers.

optimization may impact the look and feel of the site and affect some
non-mission-critical functionality.  however, it shouldn't impede access.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> They ask me questions like "when were 4.0+ browsers
> released", "what percent of the market uses non-4.0+
> browsers", and even "how will it look on AOL"...
> but with those caveats (AOL visibility), they invariably
> decide on using DHTML, possibly flash, and almost all
> require javascript.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

again, these questions are most likely based on how you sell them on the
idea of "optimization" (which isn't really optimization at all).

i usually get clients that ask "how can i get the most users with a credit
card and a desire to buy my products to successfully complete a sale".
after all, it's the almighty dollar that determines the success of the
site.



--------------------- End of message text --------------------

This e-mail is sent by the above named in their
individual, non-business capacity and is not on
behalf of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers may monitor outgoing and incoming
e-mails and other telecommunications on its e-mail and
telecommunications systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.