RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
This was an interesting article on UI design. http://tantek.com/log/2007/02.html#d19t1813 It's from February so you may have already seen it. I found it referenced on the codinghorror blog which also has an article in praise of javascript (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000857.html) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
'Minimize the number of text fields in your interfaces down to the absolute minimum necessary. Minimize the number of click/keystrokes/gestures necessary to accomplish actions in your interface. Make your interface as responsive as possible - minimize the latency of each and every action a user might take in your interface.' Something that Jakob Nielsen's been on about for about fifteen years, methinks. www.useit.com Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 22 May 2007 11:47 To: Simon Cobb; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' This was an interesting article on UI design. http://tantek.com/log/2007/02.html#d19t1813 It's from February so you may have already seen it. I found it referenced on the codinghorror blog which also has an article in praise of javascript (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000857.html) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr
Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Something that every web developer capable of writing their own name without using Dreamweaver or Frontpage has been banging on about for the last 15 years. I don't see why Nielsen gets the credit for that one. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 5/22/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Minimize the number of text fields in your interfaces down to the absolute minimum necessary. Minimize the number of click/keystrokes/gestures necessary to accomplish actions in your interface. Make your interface as responsive as possible - minimize the latency of each and every action a user might take in your interface.' Something that Jakob Nielsen's been on about for about fifteen years, methinks. www.useit.com Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 22 May 2007 11:47 To: Simon Cobb; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' This was an interesting article on UI design. http://tantek.com/log/2007/02.html#d19t1813 It's from February so you may have already seen it. I found it referenced on the codinghorror blog which also has an article in praise of javascript (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000857.html) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
I get the feeling Nielson is deliberately provocative for the sake of it sometimes (although if it sparks discussion in an area, then hell why not). I still think he needs to update his own web site though, it looks like it's stuck in the 90s. I think I've said that before, too :/ -Original Message- From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 May 2007 14:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Something that every web developer capable of writing their own name without using Dreamweaver or Frontpage has been banging on about for the last 15 years. I don't see why Nielsen gets the credit for that one. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 5/22/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Minimize the number of text fields in your interfaces down to the absolute minimum necessary. Minimize the number of click/keystrokes/gestures necessary to accomplish actions in your interface. Make your interface as responsive as possible - minimize the latency of each and every action a user might take in your interface.' Something that Jakob Nielsen's been on about for about fifteen years, methinks. www.useit.com Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 22 May 2007 11:47 To: Simon Cobb; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' This was an interesting article on UI design. http://tantek.com/log/2007/02.html#d19t1813 It's from February so you may have already seen it. I found it referenced on the codinghorror blog which also has an article in praise of javascript (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000857.html) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
I still think he needs to update his own web site though, it looks like it's stuck in the 90s. Do you mean useit.com? Agreed. I'm not saying Jakob has nothing to say but to paraphrase 80s ska combo Madness don't watch that, watch this..!: http://www.informationarchitects.jp/ Now, whether information architects have got anything to say or not is besides the point. They look and feel like they're operating in 2007 which means they're instantly more relevant to anyone building a site today. Just my 2p. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods Sent: 22 May 2007 18:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' I get the feeling Nielson is deliberately provocative for the sake of it sometimes (although if it sparks discussion in an area, then hell why not). I still think he needs to update his own web site though, it looks like it's stuck in the 90s. I think I've said that before, too :/ -Original Message- From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 May 2007 14:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Something that every web developer capable of writing their own name without using Dreamweaver or Frontpage has been banging on about for the last 15 years. I don't see why Nielsen gets the credit for that one. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 5/22/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Minimize the number of text fields in your interfaces down to the absolute minimum necessary. Minimize the number of click/keystrokes/gestures necessary to accomplish actions in your interface. Make your interface as responsive as possible - minimize the latency of each and every action a user might take in your interface.' Something that Jakob Nielsen's been on about for about fifteen years, methinks. www.useit.com Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 22 May 2007 11:47 To: Simon Cobb; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' This was an interesting article on UI design. http://tantek.com/log/2007/02.html#d19t1813 It's from February so you may have already seen it. I found it referenced on the codinghorror blog which also has an article in praise of javascript (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000857.html) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
I think the answer is... http://www.useit.com/about/nographics.html Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods Sent: 22 May 2007 18:15 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' I get the feeling Nielson is deliberately provocative for the sake of it sometimes (although if it sparks discussion in an area, then hell why not). I still think he needs to update his own web site though, it looks like it's stuck in the 90s. I think I've said that before, too :/ -Original Message- From: Richard Lockwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 May 2007 14:12 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Something that every web developer capable of writing their own name without using Dreamweaver or Frontpage has been banging on about for the last 15 years. I don't see why Nielsen gets the credit for that one. :-) Cheers, Rich. On 5/22/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 'Minimize the number of text fields in your interfaces down to the absolute minimum necessary. Minimize the number of click/keystrokes/gestures necessary to accomplish actions in your interface. Make your interface as responsive as possible - minimize the latency of each and every action a user might take in your interface.' Something that Jakob Nielsen's been on about for about fifteen years, methinks. www.useit.com Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Cobb Sent: 22 May 2007 11:47 To: Simon Cobb; backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' This was an interesting article on UI design. http://tantek.com/log/2007/02.html#d19t1813 It's from February so you may have already seen it. I found it referenced on the codinghorror blog which also has an article in praise of javascript (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000857.html) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
And Flickr is just pointless toss*. Jonathan - if you're likely to be at the Google Developers' love-in on the 31st, I'll quite happily discuss the difference between useability and accessibilty with you over a pint**. Cheers, Rich. * And I wait to be contradicted Too late. I read that about FLICKR in the Register, so it must be true! ** That goes for anyone else who fancies a pint and an argument. :-) Stick the details on Upcoming? http://upcoming.yahoo.com/ :-) Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
It's true the flashearth site is fast and keyboard accessible, but again with a mouse it's nearly useless. similarly for flickr no doubt there are sites that suit each, but I've yet to see one that's easy to use and universally accessible, or even close cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 17 May 2007, at 01:47, Christopher Woods wrote: Whoah, that FlashEarth site is awesome! Love that interface, very subtle and really responsive. @ Simon Cobb: you another GMSV reader? ;) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ?:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
On 17/05/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true the flashearth site is fast and keyboard accessible, but again with a mouse it's nearly useless. similarly for flickr no doubt there are sites that suit each, but I've yet to see one that's easy to use and universally accessible, or even close http://www.neighbourhoodfixit.com? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
http://www.neighbourhoodfixit.com? Haven't seen that before but to celebrate, I've just reported a broken lampost to my local council :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [Bulk] RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Can I just say that although useable and accessible are often closely interlinked, they're *not* the same thing? Jakob Bloody Nielsen was talking about useability, Jonathan (OK, it's his job to do so) is talking about accessibility. What I said earlier was that Google Maps is a great example of a useable site. I'm not going to comment on its accessibility. And Flickr is just pointless toss*. Jonathan - if you're likely to be at the Google Developers' love-in on the 31st, I'll quite happily discuss the difference between useability and accessibilty with you over a pint**. Cheers, Rich. * And I wait to be contradicted ** That goes for anyone else who fancies a pint and an argument. :-) On 5/17/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's true the flashearth site is fast and keyboard accessible, but again with a mouse it's nearly useless. similarly for flickr no doubt there are sites that suit each, but I've yet to see one that's easy to use and universally accessible, or even close cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 17 May 2007, at 01:47, Christopher Woods wrote: Whoah, that FlashEarth site is awesome! Love that interface, very subtle and really responsive. @ Simon Cobb: you another GMSV reader? ;) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company
Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Christopher, I was about yo ask how one navigated flickr without a keyboard... ipernity is one solution, though the category schema seems somewhat eclectic if not unique. cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 16 May 2007, at 02:08, Christopher Woods wrote: ipernity.com - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ‾:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ‾: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ?:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ?: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
At 02:08 +0100 16/5/07, Christopher Woods wrote: Keeping the Flickr train of thought for a second, have you seen ipernity.com recently? With ipernity you can: * Share your photos, music, videos * Create your multimedia blog * Invite your friends, your family * Discover the world Nice! Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
What amused me most about ipernity was that to me it seemed almost like a total ripoff of flickr, but with lots more social functionality added and a slightly slinkier colourscheme - the fact that it's French, and some parts of the UI are only part-translated makes it that little bit quirkier :) -Original Message- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 23:42 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Cc: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk; Christopher Woods Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' At 02:08 +0100 16/5/07, Christopher Woods wrote: Keeping the Flickr train of thought for a second, have you seen ipernity.com recently? With ipernity you can: * Share your photos, music, videos * Create your multimedia blog * Invite your friends, your family * Discover the world Nice! Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Whoah, that FlashEarth site is awesome! Love that interface, very subtle and really responsive. @ Simon Cobb: you another GMSV reader? ;) -Original Message- From: Brian Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2007 17:05 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You may also like to try this site, it has access to Google, Microsoft, Ask and NASA mapping and satellite photos... http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=51.509979lon=-0.226138z=17.8; r=0src=msl It is easily iframed Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Cartwright Sent: 16 May 2007 09:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Yes, javascript is required for the full, slick experience, obviously. All parts of the site are still usable when JS is off (that I can see), and seemingly entirely accessible via the keyboard. With JS on, the keys work in most browsers, although some require you to have the map in focus. Of course Google Maps has a well documented API that could be used to create uber-accessible versions for different needs - http://www.google.com/apis/maps/ J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 21:32 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ?:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Uhhh, del.icio.us ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 12:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co-developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co-developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
You Jacob talk as if the two (good design/accessiblity web 2.0) are mutually exclusive. There is nothing stopping a Web 2.0 site being well designed or accessible, as I showed before they are actually *more* likely to be. I notice that you've added the word accessible. Jacob doesn't mention it. Flickr and Twitter are well built (and argueably accessible), and there is always the mobile versions to get to the content... http://m.flickr.com http://m.twitter.com Most of these sites (if well built) will work perfectly/almost perfectly with javascript and/or CSS turned off as well, which solves the live region, notification, and some navigation issues. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 12:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co-developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
I forgot to mention. A web 2.0 site is also more likely to have an API, allowing programmatic to the content and the ability to create a fully accessible interfaces to various disadvantaged user's needs. J -Original Message- From: Jason Cartwright Sent: 15 May 2007 13:40 To: 'backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk' Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' You Jacob talk as if the two (good design/accessiblity web 2.0) are mutually exclusive. There is nothing stopping a Web 2.0 site being well designed or accessible, as I showed before they are actually *more* likely to be. I notice that you've added the word accessible. Jacob doesn't mention it. Flickr and Twitter are well built (and argueably accessible), and there is always the mobile versions to get to the content... http://m.flickr.com http://m.twitter.com Most of these sites (if well built) will work perfectly/almost perfectly with javascript and/or CSS turned off as well, which solves the live region, notification, and some navigation issues. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 12:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co-developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Well you can scroll around with the arrow keys and zoom in and out with + and -. Not sure how you change to satellite using keys, but I'm sure its in there. ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co-developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Odeo.com is a classic example of a Web2 site which looks very nice but unfortunately suffers from a REAL lack of usability. I actually used the site to add a new entry to my podcast on there, and then ranted about how hard it was to do so (and half of their in-page embedded players STILL don't work for ANY podcast on there, it's just mad!) Might do another rant too, and email them the link to listen to it... Fortunately though odeo is among the minority (even odder considering the same people are behind twitter, and that's such an easy site to use!) Sites like Newsvine and Flickr really get my vote for being great Web2 standard-bearers, I don't use Flickr that much (I'd rather keep my pictures on my own site, and I don't use it enough to bother with Pro status) but for the most part I've not had any problem using Web2 sites. The whole nature of them being dynamic and not having to wait for clicks to load entirely new pages adds to the experience for me. Nielsen loves going off on one. I've often thought he should practice what he preaches and spruce up his site a little bit, it's always reeked of 1996. -Original Message- From: Stephen Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 May 2007 17:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Well you can scroll around with the arrow keys and zoom in and out with + and -. Not sure how you change to satellite using keys, but I'm sure its in there. ~:'' ありがとうございました。 wrote: Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co-developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ~: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01
Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Jason Stephen, when javascript is disabled in Opera or Camino the message is: Your web browser is not fully supported by Google Maps I wonder is the code IE7 specific? none of the keys work for me on os x unless I'm missing something this hardly qualifies as accessible... regards Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 16:57, Jason Cartwright wrote: Disable javascript. Everything works fine. J -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ~:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 16:47 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' Richard, how does one use http://maps.google.com/ via the keyboard? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 13:22, Richard Lockwood wrote: This particular rant seems to be about useability rather than accessibility (although I appreciate the two are often closely related). Much as I often loathe Nielsen's writing - Jason's right, it's often all about Nielsen more than it is about any actual problems - in this case he's got a point. Web 2.0 sites are often completely unuseable - MySpace being a prime example, and Flickr (although it's been a while since I tried to use it to post a few pics and it may well have improved) another. Google Maps however, I'd hold up as a prime example of excellent intuitive design and useability. Just as the phrase Web 2.0 means different things to all people (I avoid it if at all possible as I feel it just makes the user sound like a buzzword spouting bandwagon-jumper who hasn't a clue what he's actually saying ;-) ), you can't tar all Web 2.0 sites with the same brush. Anyway, I've banged on far too long now, and this is what Nielsen wants - people to discuss HIM HIM HIM!!! Frankly, the less I hear of and from this tedious old bore, the happier I am. Cheers, Rich. On 5/15/07, ~:'' ありがとうございました。 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Gordon any good Accessible Web 2.0 websites you'd care to plug? or are you in a rush? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd On 15 May 2007, at 10:18, Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal opinion, and I entirely disagree. Mr Nielsen has a history of spouting contrary opinions to court controversy and gain publicity for himself and his company. Web 2.0[1] (for me at least) incorporates best practice methodologies of developing to standards (and the consequences of this, such as progressive enhancement etc) and trusting users as co- developers [2]. These core principals of Web 2.0 encourage good design. As with any technology, Web 2.0 will be misused - it's not the technology's fault that this happens, it's the designer/developer that fouled it up's problem. That doesn't look as good when you're goading mainstream journos into writing about you though, does it? J [1] I've stuck all these in quotes, as I think Web 2.0 means different things to different people. [2] Tim O'Reilly -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ‾:'' Sent: 15 May 2007 08:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' Jakob Nielsen: Web 2.0 'neglecting good design' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6653119.stm seems to have copied my pitch for hackday ‾: has he been invited? was I? did anyone else have ideas or requirements for an accessible SVG front end? cheers Jonathan Chetwynd Accessibility Consultant on Learning Disabilities and the Internet http://www.eas-i.co.uk - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/ mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail- archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01
RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design'
Keeping the Flickr train of thought for a second, have you seen ipernity.com recently? -Original Message- From: Gordon Joly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 May 2007 23:22 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Web 2.0 'neglecting good Accessible design' At 21:03 +0100 15/5/07, Christopher Woods wrote: Odeo.com is a classic example of a Web2 site which looks very nice but unfortunately suffers from a REAL lack of usability. I actually used the site to add a new entry to my podcast on there, and then ranted about how hard it was to do so (and half of their in-page embedded players STILL don't work for ANY podcast on there, it's just mad!) Might do another rant too, and email them the link to listen to it... Fortunately though odeo is among the minority (even odder considering the same people are behind twitter, and that's such an easy site to use!) Sites like Newsvine and Flickr really get my vote for being great Web2 standard-bearers, I don't use Flickr that much (I'd rather keep my pictures on my own site, and I don't use it enough to bother with Pro status) but for the most part I've not had any problem using Web2 sites. The whole nature of them being dynamic and not having to wait for clicks to load entirely new pages adds to the experience for me. Nielsen loves going off on one. I've often thought he should practice what he preaches and spruce up his site a little bit, it's always reeked of 1996. My take is that FLICKR is a social software site with pcitures, whereas Webshots (for example) is about photo albums. Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
