"Usability, localization, and accessibility are now taken seriously as ways of life "

Joe, IMHO, usability and accessibility are not taken seriously or are even widely understood. Accessibility is especially weak. Lots of lip service, little implementation. Plus, many of the designers who write accessible code bend the rules that they don't like. Wasn't there an article about federal agencies -- the only operators of U.S. web sites under a strict, specific guideline to produce accessible web sites -- that these same agencies are in poor compliance?

Usability is not widely understood. Just look at these yahoo designers who spout every knee-jerk reaction to usability (and misunderstanding of usability) in the book. That thread is an instant classic, as it were.

Back to topic... Joe, are you asking whether content has jumped the shark or weblogs have jumped the shark? I do not believe that blogs represent the bulk of online content generated by individuals. I think that because we use blogs on a daily basis, the world looks like it's dominated by blogs. Most people I know who read the web on a daily basis have never even heard of weblogs.

Posted by: Jack on September 29, 2002 11:14 PM

---

 

The problem is it is difficult to carp about degree of implementation when, a mere two years ago, nothing was being implemented.

This is the dilemma I face. Quite obviously I don't have a resolution.

Posted by: Joe Clark on September 30, 2002 08:30 AM

---

 

Apparently, Jack, the nature of discussion boards is not "well understood" either, since the one you're using as a strawman to bolster your risible assertion does not actually have a particularly high percentage of active web designers.

And, ironically, when I did participate in the community you single out for praise, I actually found that for every idiot who posted immature and arrogant dismissals of the practice of usability, there were generally two or three folks who would jump all over them from jump street.

So I'm not sure what you get out of this, except for a vague and entirely unearned feeling of superiority.

Hey, you know what, Jack? I'm considering becoming your personal nemesis, pointing out each and every time your hyperbole does the greater cause more harm than good. How's that strike you?

Posted by: Adam Greenfield on September 30, 2002 09:13 AM

---

 

I'm still waiting Adam. Please explain my straw man argument. The link I provided was not intended as definitive proof. Those "yahoo designers" are an example of what I was talking about. An example, nothing more. Without the example, the next question would be, "What do you mean, Jack?" And if it were intended as proof, well damn Adam, not a single WebWorder would stand up to your scrutiny unless they furnished a research study with every sentence. Most of what's written on WebWord is opinion.

Taking my comments to the extreme does not make you right, it only shows you have a grudge. If you take this stuff personally, you have no business being in the usability field. You'll tear yourself up inside.

Posted by: Jack on September 30, 2002 09:23 AM

---

 

Jack and Adam: Cool it down, guys.

Designers blah blah blah don't understand blah blah usability blah blah no research blah blah blah blah opinions only blah blah wet paper bag blah blah blah terrible design blah blah straw man blah blah blah feeling of superiority blah blah blah blah blah....

Criticisms are fine, feedback is fine, data is fine, opinions are fine, research is fine, and most other things are fine here. But, you're getting very close to personally attacking each other and there is nothing to gain.

I'm sending both you to your rooms without supper.

Posted by: The WebWord Mom on September 30, 2002 10:13 AM

---

 

No problem. I'll settle this by leaving. 'Twas fun guys and gals. Not fun anymore.

Posted by: Jack on September 30, 2002 11:03 AM

---

 

I wrote a long entry that I have discarded in favor of this one line that I think explains what I was trying to say: Jack, I would be sorry to see you go.

Posted by: Lydia on September 30, 2002 03:32 PM

---

 

Pointing out an example can form part of a strawman argument, when that example is not representative. An example picked simply because they are an easy target is doubly so.

Posted by: on September 30, 2002 07:14 PM

---

 

A straw man argument is one that intentionally makes a ridiculous caricature of an issue,
then knocks down that ridiculous caricature to appear as if the original assertion has been disproved.

It is a matter of interpretation of the statements made.

1) "These yahoo designers prove that usability is not widely understood." = Straw Man

2) "These yahoo designers are an example of usability not being widely understood." = An example to build support for the assertion in the original claim. Not a straw man, even if you do not think those designers are yahoos.

And if you do think the designers are yahoos, then it's not a straw man (in your mind) either way.

Posted by: on September 30, 2002 08:10 PM

---

 

Sorry, no. It's a straw man because the people making the comments weren't working Web designers at all.

Since I don't believe Jack has spent much time over at Yayhooray, I'll help him out with a little bit of history. Once upon a time, there was a web discussion board/community called Dreamless, and while that community's founder, the Flash technologist and artist Joshua Davis, explicitly announced his disinclination to consider it a "design board," it was a place where a lot of working Web designers exchanged views and information.

This was circa 2000, and a reasonable percentage of the world's most successful, creative, and highly regarded Web designers and developers spent some time there (including a number who could be considered highly usability-friendly - Jeffrey Zeldman, Nick Finck, and Big Dave Bastian among others.)

If at that time, referring to events on that board, one advanced an opinion that "designers don't understand/care about usability," well, you might have had a case. Mind you, it would have been easy to demolish it, but such a statement would have been falsifiable on its own merits.

Yayhooray, on the other hand, while in many respects a legacy of Dreamless (and formerly a congenial place in its own right), has never had quite the density of designers that the latter had. I'd venture to guess that less than 30% of the people who regularly post on Yayhooray are actually engaged in front-end design or interface development for Web sites on a routine basis, let alone enterprise-scale Web sites.

There are some brilliant people posting there - funny, talented, accomplished, insightful people - but I doubt there's even a plurality of Web designers. (There are *also*, and most unfortunately, more than a few idiots posting, which is why I left, but that's a different story.)

So to take a comment from that demographic and use it as an example that ostensibly substantiates a claim that "designers don't understand usability" is ludicrous. It is, as I pointed out, a strawman.

Most of the working designers I know feel that they account for usability issues in their work. They don't always succeed, which is why a more nuanced statement like, "The work of many web designers would be improved by the active participation of information architects or others explicitly advocating for users" would be fair.

But it's just unhelpful and destructive to stoke the fires of the distrust and dislike that already exists between these two communities. Jack, if you're so convinced that you have the Good Word, instead of hanging out here and preaching to the choir, why not spend some time at Yayhooray advocating your viewpoint (respectfully) among some people who might benefit from it a little more?

Posted by: Adam Greenfield on October 1, 2002 03:40 AM

---

 

if you have to explain, it cannot be a straw man. that requires the speaker having the foreknowledge that these people are not designers. you must to prove intent. the forum name is 'projects & design' and the thread subject 'defending design decisions to usability nutters' and it is linked to from webword.com. would the average person assume the discussion group is not comprised of designers making fun of another design web site?

Posted by: pez on October 1, 2002 09:26 AM

---

 

I have to agree with Pez. Without the foreknowledge that the people on the Yayhooray site AREN'T practicing designers, we can only assume they ARE, given the site context.

Having made that assumption, what do we make of their comments? I actually don't agree with Jack's assessment, because for every 'knee-jerk' reaction, there seems to be a sensible one. But, there are some easily disproved misconceptions, such as the 'graduate from the school of Jacob Nielson' line. I can't think of a single individual who has come in for more criticism than Filbert over the past few months on Webword, and for many of the reasons that the Yayhooray people would raise.

The comments about Jack's point on the Americans with Disabilities Act in particular are verging on wilful misunderstanding of the point he's trying to make.

I'll go back to a point I've made before. Many designers don't even seem to want to acknowledge that the designs they come up with may be difficult to use and read for many of their visitors, because of lack of contrast, small font sizes etc. If they at least could say "I know what you mean, but I like it like that", we might be getting somewhere. But to react as though it's the site visitor's fault that they find a site difficult to use is pointless.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on October 1, 2002 12:11 PM

---

 

Alan,
>> they at least could say "I know what you mean, but I like it like that"

Totally agree, when I create my 'personal' sites I design them (no laughing at the back) to suit my browsing and viewing idiosyncracies. If someone has complaints I will change it if I feel enough guilt, or I will explain that I am mainly concerned about meeting my own needs (selfish but true) and do nothing.

Posted by: Mac on October 2, 2002 06:20 AM

---

 

Alan,
RE: "The comments about Jack's point on the Americans with Disabilities Act in particular are verging on wilful misunderstanding of the point he's trying to make."

"Jack" (sorry to be presumptious in using his first name as I don't know his last) was commenting on a personal site. This is what scares me. That people will attempt to legislate visual design without thoroughly understanding the medium and it's limitations. To expect a single visual medium to meet the requirements of 100% of possible readers is extreme and is a dereliction of logic.

Will every site have an opening screen with a visual acuity test at which point it redirects to an opthalmologist approved design. At some point people need to accept the limitations they have and realize that not every site can and should be bullied into compliance.

Posted by: Chr1sBr0wn on October 9, 2002 03:58 PM

---