Web 2 Oh Too Much
OK . . . I understand the hype and fascination with Web 2.0–which, incidentally, is an unfortunate name since the web itself hasn’t really evolved, just the flavor of applications being run on it, but I guess you have to market it somehow–but I feel the interactivity is being used for trendy, unnecessary, inaccessible, and, sometimes, annoying purposes. I’m constantly inundated with flashing widgets with drag-and-drop functionality for . . . what purpose? Do I go to a website to play with the widgets? Maybe some, but, most of the time, no. Does this functionality benefit everyone? After listening to the EO Webcast today, these thoughts plagued me throughout the day. A great deal of this new technology is used for it’s slick “wow” factor and much of it that could improve the site’s accessibility falls by the wayside. Sure, I can make the site cool for 85% of the world . . . but what does that make the site for the other 15? I know that I sometimes fall prey to time constraints in my own applications. If I don’t have time to make it 508 accessible, then I skip that step. However, I am always XHTML and CSS compliant. Hopefully, that’s half the battle.
Simplicity is not a bad thing. I try to design the way I live. Objects don’t end up in my house unless they have a functional purpose (at least not the objects I buy.) So, I try to model my web apps the same way. Some of the greatest websites are the simplistically functional (check out dictionary.com if you’re looking for a great, recent example how simplicity can improve usability.) I absolutely encourage experimentation and the sharing of ideas and blogs are a great medium to accomplish this. So, by all means, let me know what you think about this issue. I’m not trying to keep anyone from doing cool things, but I am trying to keep the largest number of users in mind.
Currently Rocking Out To: Goodnight and Go – Imogen Heap
4 comments4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Good post. I hadn’t really considered the accessibility issues until now.
I think we should always be striving to improve our applications and technology (thank God we’re not still using Windows 95), and I’m all for Web 2.0. We all love Google Maps don’t we? I think there are a lot of benefits to be had in 2.0 and not all of it is just frivolous tricks.
That being said, I agree with many of the points you raise. There are a lot of sites that use AJAX for the sake of using AJAX. It doesn’t always make for a better experience, and it’s a huge problem for screen readers.
The problem is I don’t think this is going away and more and more web sites are going to start relying heavily on some form of client-side scripting. I admit I know nothing about screen readers outside of what is implied by the name, but I think they should evolve along with the web. And we should force sighted users to get a browser that can handle javascript! And while we’re at why not make them get Firefox.
Well, I could go on more about this, but this isn’t my blog :-) We’re all going to eventually “live” in the web à la Ted William’s Otherworld series anyway and all this will be moot.
The author is actually Tad Williams, not Ted. Sorry baseball fans, I don’t think Ted was writing a futuristic novel on virtual reality while maintaining his .400 batting average in 1941.
I think there are tremendous gains in using the Ajax methods in web design, even accessibility gains by doing so. However, I’m inclined to agree with some of the more vocal opponents that we shouldn’t rush into this because many businesses would weigh slick functionality over accessibility. Why do something “accessible” when you can do something “cool?” That argument plays in my head probably about the same amount it would play in a customer’s head: “OK . . . my web designer is capable of XHTML/CSS standards compliant coding, but he can do some major flashy Web 2.0 stuff, too. What’s going to ‘WOW’ the majority of my clients more?”
I don’t think there’s anything malicious about it. It’s just a very business-driven mentality. I’m glad the web is expanding and experimenting, but we shouldn’t leave anyone behind.
Maybe Ted is Tad.