W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: belittling designers, two kinds of accessibility

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:53:11 -0400
Message-Id: <200010251826.OAA1597652@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 02:00 PM 2000-10-25 -0400, David Poehlman wrote:
>I far too often see mainstream consumers complaining and multi-clicking
>in frustration over high glitz commercial pages.  Most of the sites I
>know of are glitsy because they want to be for one external or marketing
>reason or another.  Consumers for the most part seem to be concerned
>with content.  They would like it fine if it was useable.

This is very true.  Commercial interests often suffer because their designers
don't understand usability very well.  But you cannot push this as far as
Nielsen does.  He goes past the point of balanced assessment on this point. 
[It is in his commercial interest to do so.]

We are still faced with the two-facedness of consumers.  What they will tell
you versus how they vote with their feet.  I can't gage this disparity well. 
But I do believe that the advertising people are onto something, here.  People
will not tell you they respond positively to attractive styling, but in the
final analysis they do.  'Tis a puzzlement.

Since starting to learn about web accessibility, I have become more alert to
just how quick and sharp are the snap judgements I make on the basis of
appearances.  This is contrary to my rationally held value that "appearances
shouldn't matter."  I am not trying to start a twelve-step program for
sensitive new age guys, here, just trying to offer evidence from one sample
blindless person.


>Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
>voice 301-949-7599
>end sig.
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2000 14:27:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC