1. The World Wide Web Consortium.
a. The W3C was created to provide an open-source platform to allow web users to share knowledge and develop applications. The consortium's vision adheres to the Open Standards Principles, which outline a long-term commitment to improvement of users' web experience and to the harnessing of the web's capabilities for the benefit of society - to which ends the W3C develops guidelines and protocols.
b. It seems that any organisation (company, NGO, etc.) can join. Annual fees vary depending on the nature and profitability of the organisation, based on factors such as a company's parent location. W3C also generates revenue via research grants and philanthropy.
As an example, membership fees in Ireland range from €1,950 to €68,000 - the latter for large, high-revenue companies. An Irish govt. agency can join for €7,800, while the equivalent figure for Malawi is €975 (though companies generating similar revenue levels seem to be held to fairly consistent fees across locations).
c. Open-source software technologies mentioned on the W3C home page include:
W3C Validator Suite:
This tool is used to evaluate the quality of websites in accordance with W3C's own standards. It can be used by developers and site managers to evaluate all publicly available pages of a given site. It performs its functions by examining the pages' source code.
CSS Validator:
This CSS validation tool, also provided by W3C, can be used to evaluate and improve websites by locating errors occurring in CSS styling sheets linked to the pages' HTML code.
HTML Slidy:
I saw this by following the link to other software from the home page, but found it quite interesting anyway. This is an online tool for creating and organising presentations, as an alternative to systems applications such as Microsoft PowerPoint. In contrast to PPt and most blogs, it seems that the presentations are created entirely using HTML code.
d.
Three people/sites to follow who could help me during this course:
1. Webdesigntuts+ @wdtuts
This provides a vast array of tutorials and guides from different sources for web design tools including html and css. The site outlay is outrageously pretty, but a lot of the stuff is as of yet a bit more professionally oriented than what I currently need.
2. Nielsen Norman Group @NNgroup
These guys are famed for emphasising usability over aesthetics (in design in general). Don Norman's background in cognitive science would especially interest me. (For the record, from my initial impressions, I doubt very much that Norman is indifferent to aesthetic considerations; rather, I'd imagine that a minimalist style that provides visual clarity for the user is his preferred format, and that it's what he sees as unnecessary visual complexity that he dislikes).
3. http://learn.shayhowe.com/html-css/
Not following this guy on Twitter per se, but the site provides a good outline through the basic principles of html and css in a visually clear manner.
I also used Codecademy prior to starting this course, though mainly for Python, and will likely refer to it for this module at some stage as well. I've also found the YT channel Charmefis pretty helpful for the fundamentals - the guy's delivery is quite ponderous and monotonous, but he explains the material in a clear and methodical manner.
4. Observations from "Mobile & Multi-Device Design: Lessons Learned" by Luke Wroblewski.
1. Wroblewski refers to Just-In-Time functions, in the context of the need to use the small screen space of mobile devices as efficiently as possible, giving the example of the Down Keyboard function, which only appears when the virtual keyboard comes up. In general, the important of ensuring that only what is relevant at any given moment is on-screen is emphasised in the ibook.
2. The concept of how vital it is not to have password-entry steps being a usability killer ("small screens, imprecise fingers being the norm", and all that). Polar took the ostensibly audacious step of having passwords readable by default and being masked by option. (Personally, I've always found the dynamic readable-to-masked approach on the ipad etc good, but can appreciate how important it is not to have even brief dips in usability with so much digital media vying for users' attention these days).
3. I was very impressed with their evident stone-turning when RW mentioned how Polar had tested for one-thumb/one-eyeball usability, citing the split-attention situation that's often the case, e.g. catching a bus. (Personally I'm still really enjoying my pre-smartphone super-texting machine - the ultimate in one-thumbed usability!)
4. Showing gradually-appearing content as it loads as opposed to a spinning wheel and then the whole thing. Users had felt it was taking longer when the latter way used even though it wasn't. An interesting observation on the inalienable influence (often irrational) human psychology will have on design.
5. "Gradual Engagement": Engaging users from the outset in terms of how to use the app, rather than instantly presenting them with the formalities of a sign-up form when they go to download. Dire drop-off and sign-up completion rates were cited as evidence of the necessity of this.
Part 3
1. Analysing sites per potential requirements of over 70's.
a. WebMD:
There doesn't seem to be an option for vision-impaired people, though the site does seem to be visually clear. The symptom-checking aspect itself might be a bit difficult for less experienced users (LEU's, why not) to locate (you'd imagine most people use the site for this rather than for general medical news).
There are quite a few ads that could masquerade as primary content for LEU's, though they generally seem down-page a good bit and it's not the most ridiculously click-baity, spammy stuff anyway I guess.
b. Book Depository:
Navigability seems very nice on this site. Seems like it'd be a 'calm', welcoming site for LEU's. Genres and categories nicely laid out. Again, not sure if there's a resize option for vision-impaired people, but I guess people with this problem will be familiar with the browser's zoom function in any case.
c. Wired:
Like BD, very clearly and intuitively laid out and not too busy. One certainly can't just assume LEU's won't be interested in visiting this site, and if they do then they know what they're looking for among the categories, one has to assume. Might start visiting this site the odd time myself actually!
2. Give an example of a website that meets the specific needs of a certain group of people, yet gives all users a better experience.
Difficult one to answer, but the bbc probably have what would be my favourite website in many ways. Their site is visually clear and basic, with everything nicely delineated, without appearing anachronistic. In specific terms of getting football updates, in contrast with busier sites like uefa.com (with their bloody "match centres loading" and what not), everything is clearly locatable; and - though it might not be a pure web dev. issue - these updates arrive very fast indeed (with "as it stands" league tables, etc.). I've also just clicked on the bbc site's Accessibility Help link (requires a small bit of scrolling, to be fair), and they've catered for a wide range of ability issues indeed.
The bbc's website covers a huge range of news areas, with in-depth analysis in each area (also, podcasts, etc). All very clearly and simply presented, with easily navigable categories. I'd be interested to know what the likes of Don Norman would think of the site actually.
5. W3 Mobile Validator analysis of sites mentioned in no. 1.
(Very interesting to read through the failure reports actually).
a. They all scored 0%
Observations: _____________________________.
b. I haven't as yet been able to find a site that ranks higher than 60%.
Is the issue not fairly unimportant for sites that market and provide mobile apps efficiently? I mean, even Google scores only 25%.
6. WebAIM analysis
To be honest, I'm not sure WebAIM's analysis of the sites always involved a very nuanced take on things (probably quite difficulty to assess accessibility automatically, to be fair). For example, a lot of the alerts for Wired didn't seem to point to anything that'd pose any inconvenience in practice. A lot of the images seemed to be "error'd" as empty links, though they worked fine and as intended in practice.
Having said that, perhaps the flagging of images for not having alternative text (which occurred across sites) is pointing out that there should be an option to have all images appear as descriptive sentences instead, which I guess could be helpful in the context of vision impairment.
I was surprised to see so many contrast errors come up, though looking at Webmd I can see how some of the text is perhaps a bit unnecessarily grey. Wired fared a lot better in this regard, as I would have predicted.
No comments:
Post a Comment