Milosz, those sites are incredibly flash-intensive. Without flash, they
fail. With flash and a slow connection (or even processor), they run
badly. I'm afraid any objective source would give those low marks for
accessibility.
But they are entirely based on style - there is no real substance in
there, it's just visuals. So the demographics they're excluding have
nothing to gain from accessing the sites anyway. At which point, to be
honest, I'd stop worrying. There is no reason for you to beat yourself
up over these things - perhaps nice little flash tests and messages of
'nothing for you here!' on fail, and you've left no-one unaccounted.
Having said that, for creations entirely dedicated to art, they're
awfully flimsy. This is the 'art' of college design student bimbos drunk
on their own hormones and stumbling about the room looking to fall into
the lap of the nearest fad. Of course the only fads that stand out when
you're inebriated to this point are the ones with garish colours and
stuff jumping out all over the place. I suppose if you gave these guys
creative directors they could do corporate ads on the internet, possibly
music group web sites.
'Emotional' is too strong a word, I reckon (or not strong enough,
depending on where you stand). 'Sentimental' might be better. Although
it still gives a good indication of the contents. We were warned!
Regards,
Barney
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
