Usability is no Sham
My friend, Jim Wurster, sent me a link to a blog entry on ZDNet entitled “Usability on the web is a sham” which states an opinion about usability and accessibility that really doesn’t seem to be based in any sort of current web reality. The author, Ryan Stewart, surely must be a person with perfect eyesight, a well functioning body with limbs that work the way they’re supposed to and can use a mouse and a keyboard with no difficulty, and who doesn’t care if his sites are indexed by the search engines, nor usable in any alternative devices such as cellphones, screenreaders, etc. His premise is simply stated in talking about the new Rich Internet Applications, “These technologies give designers and developers absolute control over how the world appears to users. They aren’t restricted by the rules of a browser model that is 10 years old. They can build the web with multimedia and interactivity that grabs people and speaks to their emotional sides.”
Ryan has completely missed one very important point. The web is a success because the person who visits your site is the one in control. Not the Designer. Not the Developer. Not the Site Owner. The minute you forget that you’ve lost a significant part of your audience. Web surfers decide who is worthy. And not all web surfers are human.
What he describes above, a world where the developer has full control over the USER experience– that sounds to me more like TV. And I threw mine out years ago.
Ryan goes on to state, “Good development and design teams can build world class RIAs that are interactive as well as accessible. Trying to imprint usability guidelines that are based on the browser in blanket fashion on the web is going to stifle innovation and make the web less friendly. We finally have the technology to really envelop users in the web and bring them experiences that mean something. That’s more powerful than any standard and it’s a huge reason why RIAs will be so successful.”
Usability guidelines are there for a reason. They have been developed after extensive testing with real web users of myriad abilities and needs. One of the biggest lightbulb moments for me came in watching a number of very intelligent computer savvy people surf one of my sites. I just kept my mouth shut and watched over their shoulder. I was astonished. Ryan, you may not use the back button, and I admit I don’t use it much, but I assure you that most people I watched used it extensively NO MATTER HOW GOOD MY NAVIGATION SYSTEM WAS. What this means is that if people expect something to be there and you develop an application that doesn’t have it you piss off your users. Pissed off users go elsewhere. If they don’t have control in one way they’ll seek it in another– with the x at the top right or the red dot at the top left. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The cardinal rule of good web design is DON’T PISS OFF THE VISITOR.
I can remember when Flash was first introduced and developers were selling it as the Next Big Thing. Well, there are some things Flash does wonderfully, such as video delivery as used on YouTube and GoogleVideo, and in certain cases for audio delivery, but as a platform for a complete website it fails miserably. The link to the WebProWorld forum discussion illustrates that well, since most of it focusses on how badly complete flash sites do in Search Engine SERPs, which happens to be the focus of that particular forum. Problem is if a Search Engine Spider can’t easily spider a flash site, then a screen reader certainly can’t read it in proper order.
The same types of problems are now cropping up with Ajax applications. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.
Technorati Tags: usability, accessibility, Rich Internet Applications
December 17th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Devil’s advocacy: you’re not taking into account that the folks who need “accessibility” are a very small (probably vanishing) percentage. The largest percentage of web users now and I have no doubt for the forseeable future are the same people who power everything out there any more: the kids (everyone from 12 to 35) who won’t look at sites if they’re “accessible” (other than requiring that they be viewable on mobiles, that is - which really isn’t what I think of as “accessible” necessarily) - these people only care about sites that are “flash-y” and interactive as Ryan seems to be positing (other than the noted caveat in re mobiles).
There’s a significant proportion of people in the world who WANT that “RIA immersion” - these are the people who power the Wii etc.
There’s no point in developing only for one “era”. If you don’t cover all the bases, you’re STILL shutting out a large proportion of users - whichever direction you’re slanted.
December 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Vicki, Search Engine spiders have no “era”. But then, you never have paid much attention to them. Those of us who do business on the web can’t afford not to.
December 18th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Standards, usability standards and usability. I guess there is a conflict. I am a little more concerned with usability than most because I have a disabled daughter and a next door neighbor who is blind.
Does anyone really care about the few? Probably not. The game is $$$$ on the internet, for the most part. This causes things to be tailored to a specific audience. There is nothing wrong with this. But who worries about those with disabilities? Someone has to. And so, the word for the day is “care”. Do we care enough about the few to help them? I do and will.
December 18th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Hi, thanks for good article.
Full agree with this words:
The cardinal rule of good web design is DON’T PISS OFF THE VISITOR.
December 18th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
The “visitor” includes the 12-35 year old “non-disabled”. So you’re going to piss them off? THEY are the ones with the disposable income….
You have to balance the whole. You can’t simply sit here and say “I’m only going to make sites for today - because the people with disabilities are the only important group.”
I think that anyone who “makes a living on the web” may have to start making two or more complete sites. Remember the days of sites which sniffed browser res and fed specifically depending on that? I think that may become viable in a different direction…..
(Oh, btw, I make a living on the web as well - I’m just not as narrowly focused as some - and no, I don’t give a rat’s ass about spiders since that’s not how I get or keep business - and the clients I have don’t need that either thankfully.)
December 18th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Vicki, there are ways to offer alternatives to all. And web pages can offer multimedia and other interactive goodies and still be accessible. Yes, it takes more work, but should it be done as often as possible? A resounding yes. Even JK Rowling added an accessible alternative route through her otherwise totally flash website eventually, though it took her (or her devs) awhile.
Re the “12-35 year old “non-disabled”” who you speak about. More than half my clientele is under the age of 35, and wanting what I’m selling, so your comment about eras seems to be off base anyway.
The business community, no matter their age, cannot ignore accessibility. Not anymore. You might choose to in your corner of the world, but, even in your area, doing so will eventually bite you on the butt.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
*sigh* Did I say I ignore accessibility? No.
I SAID you need to consider EVERYONE. As opposed to narrow attitudes about disabled….
December 20th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Vicki, my point from the beginning was that the whole audience needs to be considered. Read the article again.
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
[…] Kickass Webdesign Design knows that our emotional sides still require strong and effective web support that’s well configured. […]
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I’ve read it several times. Sorry, bj. I don’t see ANYTHING in your post which indicates that you’re planning to “consider the whole audience”. If it’s there, it’s not particularly self-evident.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
So, what you’re saying is that taking into consideration how each and every visitor, human or otherwise, interacts with a website, and acquires information from it, is not the way to “consider the whole audience”??
December 25th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Where exactly did you state that?
And btw, I bet you a c-note that no matter what you or I or anyone else thinks, the REALITY is going to be basically virtual reality - on the lines of tv, only more immersive. And the only sites that are going to be required to have any sort of “disabled usability” will be those which fall into the gov’t specs on same.
And it’s a lot closer than you want to believe.