[thechat] rebel without a clause

[David Wagner]

> 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....
>
> I need to feel that I'm at the leading edge not pulling the brakes on in
> like some crazed luddite vainly applying friction to the wheels of the
> juggernaut.

Well, I won't tell you what's "good" to look at, because most of the sites
with designs that I like are pretty boring to the rest of the world.

But, I can tell you my take on this issue:

Separate form from content.

That's it. We can quote McLuhan until we're blue in the face, but the web is
inherently designed to be a flexible medium for *content delivery*. You can
certainly use it for aesthetic, artistic, design-oriented purposes, but
you're going to make compromises, and some people aren't going to get it;
that's just the way it is with art.

If you want to make sure that the information you're presenting will reach a
wide audience, focus on the content first and foremost.

Do I like reading the print version of Wired? Yes, it's kinda fun; I was a
subscriber for quite a few years. Do I get the same information from the
"printer friendly" version of an article off of the Wired site? Yep. Is it
easier to read? Most definitely -- I read everything that way, when I can,
because I find that most modern web design, no matter how much fun it is to
look at, strays from basic principles of readability.

A site doesn't have to be made up entirely of boring, flat text, either.
"Printer friendly" pages are a good example -- with one extra click, I've
reached a page that JAWS (a screenreader program) will love. And, if the
page is properly designed, I should be able to get to that link, using a
screenreader, without any trouble.

And of course, pages that degrade properly are the best way to go. Give your
users (or at least their browsers) some options -- it isn't hard, and it
will satisfy the Mountain Dew guzzling 18 to 35 year old athletic males as
well as their tea sipping blind grandmothers. If you actually have a site
that caters to both. :)

Sorry to spew -- I just came back to work from an art class, and some of the
same topics came up in our discussion there. I can understand the
frustration with the aesthetic values of "proper" web design -- or the lack
thereof -- but the thing that frustrates me more is an inability to see when
compromise is necessary. Sometimes you just gotta serve the greater audience
at the expense of excitement, or accept the consequences if you don't.

If you ask me, there's no right or wrong to that question (legal issues
aside), but when one isn't willing to accept either side, the only other
option is to reinvent the standards. Which isn't a bad idea either, but
takes a bit more effort.

Whew! There's my babble for the week. No more coffee for me.

P.S. Tony, this isn't really directed at you -- I have this conversation
with people all the time, and sometimes I just feel the need to rant about
it. I'm not trying to start an argument. Really. :)

--

David Wagner
dave at worlddomination.net