|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: September 07, 2002 Reader Comments...
Not sure I follow... http://www.elasticspace.com/about/ Posted by: Tim on September 7, 2002 01:00 PM
I've never heard of Timo Arnall. I thought I knew all the usability folks out there, but I guess not. That's all, nothing more. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on September 7, 2002 01:26 PM
Not a "usability folk" at all, methinks. Just a scary good designer. Posted by: Che Tamahori on September 8, 2002 06:57 PM
John knows all usability folks around the country? Woweee... Hey John, can I work for you? You seem to be bloody well connected. :D Posted by: MadMan on September 8, 2002 11:05 PM
MadMan, know of another bookmarklet, one that will force all font colors to black? You know, so that Timo Arnall's page, boxesandarrows.com, etc. are readable? Grey on grey is ridiculous.
Well, I do have one, but it doesn't work for CSS sites. :( I can't for the life of me figure why the people at BoxesAndArrows.com, who are supposed to know their shit, refuse to make this basic change in readability. What is so cool about "I can barely read it" grey? Dammit, any half decent designer knows the importance of CONTRAST in good design. So why bleed our eyes. I don't visit that site even when John points to stories there. It's just too much for me. And I'm not going to fiddle with my monitor settings just so that I can read a site's articles. Nuh uh. Here's the bookmarkllet. Drag it to your links bar.
BTW, a very dark grey like #333333 on a white background (or something like #F8F8F8) can actually improve readability. Wait a minute! B&A has made their grey darker - to #333333. Sneaky. I'm pretty sure it was a couple of tints lighter earlier. Or am I just imagining it? Look how this thread has got sidetracked... :) Posted by: MadMan on September 9, 2002 08:03 AM
Ya, I found that bookmarklet, but it prompts me to input a color. Good in some situations, but I really just want it to, by default, switch to black. My feeble attempt to edit it did not work. I disagree about the dark grey / white background observation. IMHO, sooner or later people adjust their monitor brightness to a level that is comfortable for reading black text on a white background because 99.9% of sites use that convention, their word processor uses it, etc. Throw a poor contrast site back into the picture and it's hard to read. Posted by: Jack on September 9, 2002 09:08 AM
Umm, it's been the darker gray since just about Boxes and Arrows' launch (I honestly can't remember whether it was changed the week before or after launch). Flame first and ask questions later... <g> Posted by: George Olsen on September 10, 2002 02:29 AM
Nice to meet you, John S. Rhodes. I have in fact been visiting webword since 1999 or some crazy long time ago, many thanks for the continuing effort. My work is design, in a broad sense, rather than usability. About text legibility & contrast - I think it is much more of a personal preference than a big usability issue. Many of the sites that I visit day to day have similar or lower contrast ratios than elasticspace or b&a, and all are much easier on the eyes for extended reading. Having said that though, I am gradually evolving the visual design of the site, which is adding more contrast and definition. Posted by: Timo on September 10, 2002 10:59 AM
It's not a "preference." It's the difference between me reading your content and enjoying your site ---and me getting eye strain, a headache, and blasting off an angry e-mail to you. If it were approached from an accessibility standpoint, and I could make that case, it would be considered discrimination. (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act are considered to be a civil rights issue.) Within 5 or 10 years we'll see lots of web access lawsuits.
I don't remember boxes and arrows changing their main article color, but I do seem to recall that some of their subheadline colors were (and some still are) too light to present an effective contrast. But, as long as I can read the article I don't much care. Posted by: Lydia on September 11, 2002 03:47 PM
Jack; yes, its your personal preference. When it comes to disabilities and accessibility, you will find that elasticspace is written to be totally compliant with the Web Accessibility Guidelines. Sounds like you should be using Opera or Mozilla and applying your own styles to the entire www, or even using a screen reader if on-screen reading gives you a headache. Posted by: Timo on September 12, 2002 12:28 PM
A physical limitation is not a preference. Instead of adapting your site to accommodate the dominant browser, you've decided to screw 'em instead. Good job. Posted by: Jack on September 13, 2002 02:03 AM
Just posting this, in case you missed it here. CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) is a technology that Boxes & Arrows and elasticspace use to enable a strong visual design, while also allowing user choice and preference. For anyone having trouble reading the dark grey on white text, it is a simple matter of going to preferences, and asking the browser to apply its own colours (it defaults to Black and White). Thus rendering the site readable to anyone. If you are feeling tricksy you can also apply your own CSS style sheets to the entire www, rendering 40 pixel, black fonts on a bright yellow background if that suits you... That is exactly what CSS was invented to do. Rather than using dodgy hacks, why not use the internet in the way it was intended. You can then thank the authors for complying with w3c and web accessibility initiatives.
Just pointing out in case you missed it here. I find your reasoning to be baloney. No, more than that. Baloney with horse radish. I am offended because "poor contrast design" is a very very Bad Thing. Posted by: Jack on September 13, 2002 02:39 PM
Jack wrote "...and me getting eye strain, a headache, and blasting off an angry e-mail to you." Quit whining, go take some asprin and shut off your computer. wanker. Posted by: god on September 13, 2002 07:46 PM
oh, and i forgot... it's the internet. nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you view a site. if you don't like it, leave. it's just that simple.
I let slip my baloney comment because I was quite offended at the idea that a physical limitation - a limitation that induces headaches when reading poor contrast web pages -- is a preference of the user. To me, that's the same as saying, "Sorry you don't like that our wheelchair access ramp is located at the rear of our building in our loading dock area, but if you would prefer, we have stairs at the front of the building. Please don't complain. We meet the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Your preferences are your own problem." Uh huh. Horse radish. Posted by: Jack on September 13, 2002 11:45 PM
jesus, that gave you a headache?!? you either need glasses or need to update your prescription. better yet, just stop bitching. Posted by: god on September 14, 2002 01:27 AM
I don't know what's more fun. Reading this yahoo's blatherings, or egging him on to amuse me some more. Go ahead, say something else funny. Posted by: Jack on September 14, 2002 01:29 AM
Jack, if you hate a site's CSS so much, just turn it off. This can be done in all major browsers. Or, alternatively, you can use this bookmarklet to toggle the CSS on/off (the styles will reload upon a refresh of the page, or the click of a link): Toggle CSS Be grateful that the site should be built in a flexible CSS, and not crummy <font> tags, which aren't so easy to tweak in a browser. Posted by: JDB on September 14, 2002 03:47 AM
Boxes and Arrows did used to be Black on White 16 Nov 2001. I can read white text on a white background by selecting the text and copying it into notepad. But I don't think I should have to. Posted by: Mac on September 14, 2002 06:41 AM
It's still your own preference Jack. Out of the 21,000 unique visitors to elasticspace each month, for the last 6 months of that design, I have received 55 emails praising the design, and over 100 email praising the content, and one complaint (from you Jack) about the contrast. Now you think the whole internet should be black and white for your sake? Thats what I call arrogance. And all these rude comments are not from me. Posted by: Timo on September 14, 2002 09:10 AM
Well, Timo, you must be right then. I'm sure everyone who was disgusted with poor contrast spent their time to find a link to e-mail you their thoughts in detail. You're making judgements based on feedback from the choir. As you've seen, there are people here who find boxesandarrows difficult to read and have developed coping mechanisms (such as reading the print versions of pages). I'm curious how many of these "coping" users (or people like me who don't even bother coming back) ever submit feedback.
I went outside and got a breath of fresh reality. I'm arguing with a web designer that #1 text contrast is good so that people do not have trouble reading a page and #2 a person's physical limitations are not a matter of preference. Yeah, ok, this is a waste of time. Posted by: Jack on September 14, 2002 03:01 PM
usuability geeks are stupid. Posted by: ross on September 16, 2002 12:02 PM
Yeah - all text on the entire internet should be black on white, because Little Jack likes it that way, because little Jacks head aches if he sees anything else. He finds all other combination of colours "disgusting". Now, there's a guy who has his priorities right. I personally find rape, incest, polution et al. disgusting - but Jack focusses so much on this issue, that he actually uses that term about specific colour combinations on the internet. To hell with innovation and diversity. To hell with different strokes for different folks.
Jack, I don't know who you are or what work you've produced. And I don't ordinarily stoop to respond to such trollery as yours. But I will point out that impugning Timo's integrity, and ascribing a whole bunch of inarticulate flames to him, doesn't get you anywhere in my book. In fact, it knocks you more than a couple of spaces back. Timo Arnall is a very well-respected designer, one with both impeccable taste and a greater-than-usual feel for usability issues. He also happens to be a personal friend. I have a very hard time believing that Timo would post inarticulate and anonymous pissings, when he is more than able to defend his decisions with precision and elegance. Further, I think it's worth pointing out that this entire tempest in a teacup is taking place on a site whose lime-green accents and black on blaring white give *me* a headache, and offend my aesthetic sense. It may in some sense constitute a narrowly-defined "usability," but I would never "use" it. Same goes for Uncle Jakob's monstrosity of a site, which I find barely navigable. Designers are employed for many reasons; one of them is that usability engineers are frequently enough incapable of applying aesthetic judgment to their underlying structural decisions. Timo not merely gets this stuff, but he gets most of it right for this user, most of the time. Which is more than I can say for others participating in this travesty of a discussion. Posted by: Adam Greenfield on September 16, 2002 09:03 PM
What this discussion needs is more lines drawn in the sand. :-) 1) Jack - you passed on your feedback - if the designer/site owner doesn't agree, that's his perogative. Let go. Why do you care so much about THIS site? Is the content really compelling or interesting to you? If so, then tell the author why you care (include a compliment with your criticism). If low contrast sites TRULY give you headaches, then you should look into ways to adjust sites for yourself (e.g. assistive technologies), if this only happens occasionally, maybe you just need to give your eyes a break or look into eye exercises - I over-work my eyes occasionally and have learned ways to avoid it. I also have to question why you point out this site - surely there are many, many worse designs on the web. Why criticize this one? Is there some background info we're missing here? As a usability person you should recognize the fact that designs are compromises - you are only 1 user in many - your needs and preferences may be different from the rest. Not all sites are designed for you or people like you - even though you may use them. 2) Timo - you might want to listen to and consider feedback - after all, Jack was likely trying to help. Jack may only represent 5% of your potential audience (or .5% or 50%) -- is it worth listening to? Is 21,000 unique users the best you can do? Would changing your design get you more or less users? Have you usability tested it or just going off of your own gut feel? 3) My opinion: I like the elasticspace design, it works for me. the background color is a nice change from glaring white (which I don't dis-like), and it creates a unique look -- which DOES matter (it's called branding). The font is a bit small for my aging eyes (which aren't what they used to be now that I'm thirtysomething) I think that is the real problem Jack is having, not a lack of contrast. You also can't resize the font with the text size option in IE. The nav and bottom right text is lower contrast, but not unreadable or unusable. I find it more confusing that some links are blue and some are black - some headings are links and some aren't (with nothing to visually differentiate) -- so I resort to "scratch and sniff" link-finding with the mouse. Since it's basically a portfolio site, the real question is "does it bring in new business?" -- that's what really matters. THE ONLY IMPORTANT METRICS ARE BUSINESS METRICS (with a few exceptions for non-business scenarios). 4) If every site looked the same it'd be a boring web! 5) Timo's comments have been very civil. Jack, you sound like someone flaming just because he didn't get his way. When you mention lawsuits and insult the whole industry of 'designers' you might (just might) be escalating the argument a bit. 6) What this world doesn't need is yet another usability person screaming that all ice cream should be vanilla because "99%" of all ice cream is vanilla. Posted by: Lyle - Son of a Usability Guru on September 16, 2002 11:28 PM
"What this world doesn't need is yet another usability person screaming that all ice cream should be vanilla because "99%" of all ice cream is vanilla. -- Based on 2001 supermarket sales of ice cream, the top five flavors in the United States include: Vanilla Summary: 28% is not 99%
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |