There are a lot of well designed weblogs out there, so it takes quite a bit to impress us here at the WSA. However Shaun's new design defiantly hit the spot for me when it launched last week. On first inspection, It's essentially a very simple design. However it's the special touches such as faux form widgets that set this site apart. Very smart.
Reviewed by Andy Budd
Congrats shaun, this is a great site with a lot of thought put into it.
Posted by miles :: February 25th, 2004 at 02:03 AM
I love the buttons, but they're invisible when I disable images using the Mozilla Web Developer toolbar. They come back as links if I disable stylesheets however, so this is a pathological case (you need to be browsing with images off and CSS on, which is pretty insane) but it's worth noting.
Posted by Eric TF Bat :: February 25th, 2004 at 03:16 AM
While I love Shaun's work I have to wonder what standards these awards are being awarded by?
I thought the whole idea of webstandards was not only to build sites that use them, but that work in compliant browsers.
Shaun's site ONLY works correctly in Firefox - it fails in Opera 7, Safari and IE(6.0.28)
AND WDDG .. oh come on ... please they are just here for their name .. please tell me they are just here for that?
Posted by John :: February 25th, 2004 at 07:17 AM
First of all, thanks for the award guys.
John, "Only works correctly in Firefox?" My primary browser is Safari. I wouldn't let my own site fail in my browser of choice. Shoot me an email and let me know what problem your having and I'll look into it.
Posted by Shaun Inman :: February 25th, 2004 at 07:52 AM
@Shaun Inman: That Site has big problems in opera 7.n, that's a problem i have.
Posted by amano :: February 25th, 2004 at 08:11 AM
I have to say my namesake "John" as a valid point.
Not only is it an utter mess in Opera, it also has issues in Firefox/Mozilla.
Simply go to the Composer section and try and make use of the Designologues drop down, it hides behind the main headings. Add to that the fact that major site elements are scripted out of IE totally.
Shaun did say it wasnt finished and I can only say I agree.
John
Posted by John :: February 25th, 2004 at 09:00 AM
Why all the complaining fellas? Shaun's site is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when using css, xhtml, javascript and php in harmony. So, there are a few bugs? I can get over that and realize his intent in beuilding this site and how beautiful it really is. I think i detect some jealousy...
Posted by Justin Goodlett :: February 25th, 2004 at 01:04 PM
I'm not going to defend every challenge that is made here but let me address three of them: Opera makes up less than 1% of my audience. ShaunInman.com is a personal site. I'm not selling anything. From what I can see using BrowserCam (my only access to Opera), content is still accessible enough to read even if my meticulous layouts receive some rearrangement.
The drop-down issue has to do with a Flash plug-in bug in some browsers (FireFox OS X doesn't seem to have this problem) that places all Flash movies above all other content. Regardless of z-index. The drop-down is meant as a quick link sort of thing. Something you would come to the site to use taking you somewhere else. I don't expect many to use it once they dig deeper into the site. It's not an internal navigation mechanism so I'm willing to concede this until the browser/plug-in developers address this bug on their own.
As for scripting out "major site elements," which refers to the "My Designologue..." drop-down and site search, I consider those to be amenities. I'm in no way obligated to provide access to that content, it's a reward for using a decent browser. I do have a JavaScript fix for my drop-down in IE but I just haven't had time to implement it.
Posted by Shaun Inman :: February 25th, 2004 at 01:44 PM
@#8: this is okay, you don't need to defend, but i can't understand why you get an "works right" award for something that doesn't work right.
Posted by amano :: February 25th, 2004 at 03:21 PM
I agree. The site fails in several browser and it shouldnt have been awarded until the errors are fixed.
Posted by David :: February 25th, 2004 at 04:55 PM
You folks are too uptight. Way to go Shaun! I know you will address all issues and get them resolved. Keep up the awesome work.
Posted by Sally :: February 25th, 2004 at 06:31 PM
What better test than to have your site constructively pulled apart by web standards evangelists, huh? ;)
Clean design, I like it. And your forms are super sweet!
Posted by coda :: February 25th, 2004 at 10:02 PM
Good job Shaun!
I am seeing the site in Safari, and it looks great.
Posted by Michael :: February 26th, 2004 at 03:26 AM
The site looks wonderful. I especially like the header fonts. ("identity theft","FEBRUARY 24, 2004 POSTED 08:14 PM")
I don't think this site deserves to have a "web standards" award, though. I respect the effort that goes into making a site with such beauty while supporting standards. But this site isn't accessible. If images are turned off, and styles are on, it's impossible to navigate the site. (okay, not impossible, but incredibly hard)
And don't give me that stuff about "oh, who browses with images off and CSS on?" I used to do it all the time when I had dial up.
Posted by Tom :: February 26th, 2004 at 05:25 AM
As commendable and as beautiful as the site is, I am a little perplexed that it received an award for web standards when it breaks in some browsers.
I can understand the graceful omission of usability-centric extras but when things start to break, not just politely vanish then it could be said that the site is failing to support the ideal that web standards, and this awards site, try to uphold.
As such the issues at hand lend strength to the argument that this site shouldn't have been chosen for the award. I don't consider this a fault of the designer – hasty design decisions and compromises weighed up against the potential target audience in the scope of a personal site are often made to speed the delivery of content to the majority, which is perfectly acceptable, and at times commendable in my book – because content is still king.
But this does raise a question. Being that if a website like this is to be paraded in front of users armed with an array of different browsers, under the pretence of a site supporting the web standards ideal, should such allowances still be deemed acceptable?
I think that’s a question best left up to the person or persons handing out the awards. This is, after all, their website.
However, if such consents are made, then I would hope that the reviewer considered the potential traffic they are about to channel to this site prior to passing on the award. If the readers of webstandardawards.com are using browser clients that the site in questions doesn’t play well with, they should be justly informed in the review text.
Posted by Cameron :: February 26th, 2004 at 05:40 AM
Does anyone read the title of this page? It says "Web Standards Awards". Not "Usability Awards" or "Accessibility Awards".
If you read the criteria for receiving an award, the only mandatory criteria are:
- that it validates, which Shaun's site does
- that there is an effective separation of data and presentation, and
- that mark-up is as semantic as possible
Accessibility, usability, code-style; these are not mandatory, though they play a large part in the decision.
The visual design of a site may overrule some accessibility issues -- and vice versa -- in influencing whether a site gets an award or not. Plenty of sites out there use FIR, and have the same issues with CSS on/images off, but there's no perfect solution to the problem which FIR tries to tackle. You have to consider it within the context of all the other features the site brings.
Is it a deal breaker? No. That's why he got an award.
Posted by Cameron Adams :: February 26th, 2004 at 05:50 AM
My goodness, heated debate in here!
Just wanted to say the site is exceptional... and, look just fine on my Safari. :-)
Posted by Chuck Olsen :: February 26th, 2004 at 07:56 AM
@#16: ohh, you're right, overseen it. so i can build a site where nothing works, build layers that hide other important layers, write everything in 2px and put #666 font on #333 bg. i would still have a chance to win this award if it validates right and the source is semantic?
so goodbye webstandards awards, i'll visit you again when you fixed your concept and criteria
;p
Posted by amano :: February 26th, 2004 at 03:39 PM
#18 Get a life and fix your attitude.
Posted by Sally :: February 26th, 2004 at 06:07 PM
lets invent the "page of boring standards compliant 20pt text with blue underlined links awards" shall we? Who has the right to say what can be included in the awards?? I dont think you'll be missed amano, go surf some blogs ;)
shaun - genius work
Posted by gray :: February 26th, 2004 at 07:09 PM
hey shaun, sweet work on your inter-web thingy. i like all the hoopla and whoop-de-dos. site is the most awesome thing seen ever i have. its most fresh like lettuce!!
Posted by steve-o :: February 26th, 2004 at 11:17 PM
Maybe some people have the point of this awards site wrong, maybe I do, I don't really know.
In my mind this site is a good example of what should win here. It's a standards validating site which follows the spirit CSS design. It's not the most accessible site in the world, but it's a personal site, it's shaun's place to comment and experiment, I understand that some people think a design is bad if it deviates from accessiblity guidelines by an inch but I don't think that's what this place is about.
I think the web standards awards site is here to promote standards-based creative design, to encourage designers, to let them realise that standards-based design doesn't have to be boring and anal. I've shown shaun's site to several designers who couldn't care less about the w3c standards and each one of them was blown away by what is possible with CSS design.
Creativity still has a place here doesn't it? I think shaun strikes the ever present balance between convention and expression perfectly.
Posted by miles :: February 27th, 2004 at 12:50 AM
#22 Well said!
Posted by Sally :: February 27th, 2004 at 01:13 AM
Maybe the Web Standards Awards should revise the Criteria page, it would probably reduce the number of debates.
The visual design of a site may overrule some accessibility issues -- and vice versa -- in influencing whether a site gets an award or not. Plenty of sites out there use FIR, and have the same issues with CSS on/images off, but there's no perfect solution to the problem which FIR tries to tackle. You have to consider it within the context of all the other features the site brings.
True, but, usually, it is possible to navigate the site.
Posted by Tom :: February 27th, 2004 at 05:32 AM
You know, I'm part of that infinitesimal percentage of people that use Opera as a default browser, and shauninman.com looked and worked just fine. Hardly what I'd call "an utter mess." Any lost functionality certainly did not detract from the experience.
What is meant by "works correctly?" If that means the site should be totally functional and accessible regardless of the browser/platform combination, I challenge anyone to show me a site that does so perfectly. Under that sort of scrutiny, no site should receive this award.
Presumably, Shaun considered the purpose of his site and the target audience, and then designed within those limitations. He made compromises rather than hold blindly to a credo that is admirable, but still not 100% practical. Welcome to reality. The site validates, looks great, and reaches his target audience. Cut the guy some slack.
Posted by aliotsy :: February 27th, 2004 at 06:02 AM
I think the site looks great, and it works well in Standards compliant browsers. As far as personal sites are concerned, I take the attitude that people using badly built and outdated browsers (read: IE), shouldn't be catered to. They need to change browsers or make enough noise that their browser gets fixed.
Shaun's site validates and has good-looking, clean CSS design, I think it deserves the award.
Posted by Tyson Tune :: February 27th, 2004 at 03:30 PM
Shaun sit is a very well designed creative approach to using CSS and web standards; with flash/php aswell.
job well done adn i have no problems in firefox at all,amano & david jealousy will destroy you fellas, ease up and dont trip just because your not getting an award.
-job well done Shaun
Posted by Steven :: February 27th, 2004 at 10:59 PM
Doesn't work at all on a MAC running OS 9, in fact it crashed my browser ... raaaaaa ... and its given an award ... why?
Posted by Graham Sanders :: March 5th, 2004 at 01:07 PM
FAO Shaun Inman
I use a MAC running OS 9 using IE 5.0 and the site crashes or doesn't load.
Hope this helps
GS
Posted by Graham Sanders :: March 8th, 2004 at 09:38 AM
no one cares about Mac OS 9 using IE 5.0 , isn't it obvious?
Posted by Danny Cohen :: March 22nd, 2004 at 05:06 AM
Actually Danny, it's not that no one cares. Older versions of IE5/Mac have some serious rendering bugs and flaws--specifically with CSS floats. These bugs were corrected in later versions. IE 5.1.x for OS 9 has been available for at least a year. During development I tested my site in various 5.1.x releases on G3s and G4s and it did not crash the browser. And it still doesn't.
Posted by Shaun Inman :: March 22nd, 2004 at 12:28 PM
i slightly agree amano, definetly a good looking website, nice use of css but good web standards? nahhhhh
its my first visit to this site but i always thought web standards were about it validating (which it does) and working to the best degree it possibly can (which it does not) this site seems to disagree on the later which is weird. a little more time spent on crappy css hacks shaun and i think you'll be worthy of that award ;)
but its personal so i dont think id bother with anything other than my choice of browser either !
Posted by mitch :: April 14th, 2004 at 09:53 PM
Comments on: ShaunInman.com