WSA Winner
Friday March 5th, 2004
It's good to see a traditional graphic design body willing to support new techniques and standards. The Atlanta chapter of the American Institute of Graphic Arts has chosen a clean, minimal web site in XHTML that still manages to pull off the edgy look required of a graphic design institution.
CSS' ability to re-position content has been used to good effect on sub-pages -- allowing content to come before the navigation in non-CSS browsers, but with navigation still remaining visually at the top of the page; a good accessibility consideration.
Reviewed by Cameron Adams
#1
I cannot understand the point of featuring this site.
It's ugly and claustrophobic; it looks to me a pro-bono work.
Posted by kiko :: March 5th, 2004 at 12:42 PM
#2
I agree with kiko on this one.
While it's true that it's not very attractive to look at, it also has some major usability problems.
1 - The text color doesn't contrast nearly enough on some elements for them to be readable by people with some forms of color blindness.
2 - The nav bar relies on js being enabled to be accessible. With javascript disabled there's absolutely no way for someone to access the sub categories of the site which is really to bad since that seems to be where the majority of the content is! Giving js free access to the top level of a nav bar's only a good thing if those pages actually include the category sub nav.
3 - The style sheet switcher also relies on js being enabled. The first thing you must do is ask yourself why it's there in the first place. Gecko browsers and Opera allow the user to select your alternate style sheets without the switcher. If the reason for it being there is for IE/Win users than maybe you should think about making the buttons slightly bigger since people wanting a larger font size are likely to have problems seeing those buttons as well. You should also maybe make them images with blank alt attributes so they're ignored by UA's where they're N/A like Lynx, JAWS etc. Finally, make the links point to a server side script that will switch the style sheet instead of just using href="#". That way, someone with scripting enabled gets the client side switch and someone with it disabled gets the server side one.
These problems are a perfect example of why accessibility validators should be used just as a first and last pass, not as an easy, one time fix all tool. While the validator may say that this site complies with 508, it clearly does not.
Anyway, I know that I'm probably not being as clear in this post as I have been in the last couple but I'm hung over so you'll have to excuse me. ;)
Posted by Damon Haidary :: March 5th, 2004 at 07:56 PM
#3
"Web Standards Awards" winner.
Either this is a serious case of 'good old boy' back slappin in a private club or the judges do not understand web standards.
This takes away from your credibility. What a disappointment : (
Posted by Ray McKenzie :: March 6th, 2004 at 02:53 PM
#4
I mean cmon guys, you feature a great site like jon hicks the week b4, now you chuck this site up?
Yes it's "web standard" but its one of the most ugly minimalistic sites i've seen.
but hey it's your awards..
-peace
Posted by Steven :: March 6th, 2004 at 07:49 PM
#5
If you want to see real creativity applied to an AIGA site go see AIGA Los Angeles
Posted by Greg :: March 6th, 2004 at 08:31 PM
#6
This site may not be to everybody's taste, but as we all know, design is very subjective. However I'm unsure how picking this site demonstrates a lack of understanding about web standards or undermines the credibility of the judges. As far as I can tell, both the XHTML and CSS are standards compliant.
The site does have a few minor accessibility issues, however it is perfectly navigable with javascript turned off. Being an accessibility advocate myself, I understand the need for sites to be more accessible. That being said, accessibility isn't an absolute. I think a much more positive approach would be to praise sites for the lengths they have gone to become more accessible, rather than knock them for a few minor infractions.
Also please bare in mind that these are the Web Standards Awards, not the Web Accessibility Awards. Accessibility is one of the criteria we look at, but by no means the only one.
We are always looking out for sites that are visually appealing and marry usability and accessibility, with creative use of web standards. If you have been involved in creating such a site, or feel a particular site should be considered for an award, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Posted by Andy Budd :: March 7th, 2004 at 01:37 AM
#7
I think that the site is hard to view, but it does pass the validation and such, and it looks nice, but still sometimes hard to decipher what is going on.
When I first whent to the site, I was a little lost in all the subtlety. I do not think that this should have been chosen, but I am willing to have my mind changed
Posted by dcohen :: March 7th, 2004 at 03:38 PM
#8
Cameron et al. -- Thanks so much for the star!
While I must say I respectfully (and predictably) disagree with some of the comments about the quality of the design, I really do appreciate hearing constructive criticism about the site.
Damon --
1 - I hadn't really thought about the colorblindness issue since the site is so monochromatic. My understanding has been that the issues there are much more of two juxtaposed colors than simply one of value or lightness. At the same time, there's definitely some low-contrast pieces of the site. Do you have any resources / further reading you'd like to send my way?
2 - Funny -- I actually noticed this same problem a bit earlier (on Thursday, I believe) and was working on a fix. It's in place now... thanks!
3 - All very good comments on the style-switcher. We'll revisit those once I can partner up with the back-end developer so that we can have the server-side switching as a fallback, and can look at those other issues, too.
Thanks again!
Posted by Nate Cook :: March 8th, 2004 at 12:27 AM
Comments on: AIGA Atlanta