This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Dreamweaver > December 2005 > Review and Input - Please?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Review and Input - Please?
|
|
| mhaddon 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| We have just gone live with our new site. We used layers and some CSS. To a
certain extent, with slower connections, the site loads piecemeal. I would
appreciate input and advice on the site. Are there ways to keep it from
loading so piecemeal or do you think it is ok? Please give comments (or
suggestions on how we can fix it up a bit). Thanks in advance!
mhaddon@utah.gov
www.justice.utah.gov
| |
| darrel 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| > Please give comments (or
> suggestions on how we can fix it up a bit). Thanks in advance!
Mhaddon:
Visually, the site looks great. However, there are major accessibility
issues with your site.
For starters, most of the text on your home page is image based. That means
I can't resize the type to a readable level.
A lot of the links on your home page say 'more information' that means
anyone using a screen reader is going to hear a list of links read as:
- link: more information
- link: more information
- link: more information
- link: more information
- link: more information
which is fairly meaningless.
Many of the links are javascript based, which means folks without
javascript, or who maybe navigate with a keyboard, are going to ahve a tough
time using.
The left fly-out navigation is completely inaccessible. A person can't
navigate it with a keyboard, and if they don't have javascript, they can't
get to any other pages.
A lot of your content is in PDF format, and I sympathize, because we're in
the same situation. keep in mind that HTML is much more accessible and, at
times, Word Docs can even be more accessible. Something to consider in the
future.
A lot of the links open in pop-ups. Is there a reason for that? It's a bit
annoying (especially after I drill down 3 levels and end up with 3 pop ups)
and, again, can be an accessibility issue.
Some pages are just a huge image:
http://www.justice.utah.gov/ccjjmembership.htm
I don't see any reason for that. I'd make them text.
The top navigation bar (CCJJ, sentencing, substance abuse, etc.) all appear
to be links to other web sites. That's a bit confusing, as it appears to be
main navigation for this site. I'd maybe label that as 'other judicial
sites'.
OK, that's all the bad stuff. Hope I wasn't too harsh ;o)
Good stuff:
Love the contact list. The county map crime stats are nice.
Hope that helps. I know you have a daunting task designing a .gov site like
that that has to please pretty much everyone. I sympathize ;o)
-Darrel
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| Your site would not pass any accessibility test, you know? For example,
none of your submenus are accessible if javascript is not enabled (that's
only one of the many reasons that the menu method you have chosen is
generally spurned by more experienced developers), and none of the text on
the page is resizable since it is all in graphics. The page fails
validation, missing many alt attributes, among other much more serious
problems -
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbo...ustice.utah.gov
The look is pleasant, but it is achieved with ~100K of images. In my mind
that is too heavy a compromise. The target weight of a home page is 40-45K
total, and your 100K in in image weight alone, not counting the 10K of code
and the >35K of externally referenced files.
Your interior pages are trouble - they are all using improperly built
Library items -
<!-- #BeginLibraryItem "/Library/sentencing_nav.lbi" -->
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/JavaScript">
<!--
function MM_preloadImages() { //v3.0
var d=document; if(d.images){ if(!d.MM_p) d.MM_p=new Array();
var i,j=d.MM_p.length,a=MM_preloadImages.arguments; for(i=0; i<a.length;
i++)
if (a[i].indexOf("#")!=0){ d.MM_p[j]=new Image; d.MM_p[j++].src=a[i];}}
}
function MM_swapImgRestore() { //v3.0
var i,x,a=document.MM_sr; for(i=0;a&&i<a.length&&(x=a[i])&&x.oSrc;i++)
x.src=x.oSrc;
}
function MM_findObj(n, d) { //v4.01
var p,i,x; if(!d) d=document;
if((p=n.indexOf("?"))>0&&parent.frames.length) {
d=parent.frames[n.substring(p+1)].document; n=n.substring(0,p);}
if(!(x=d[n])&&d.all) x=d.all[n]; for (i=0;!x&&i<d.forms.length;i++)
x=d.forms[i][n];
for(i=0;!x&&d.layers&&i<d.layers.length;i++)
x=MM_findObj(n,d.layers[i].document);
if(!x && d.getElementById) x=d.getElementById(n); return x;
}
function MM_swapImage() { //v3.0
var i,j=0,x,a=MM_swapImage.arguments; document.MM_sr=new Array;
for(i=0;i<(a.length-2);i+=3)
if ((x=MM_findObj(a[i]))!=null){document.MM_sr[j++]=x; if(!x.oSrc)
x.oSrc=x.src; x.src=a[i+2];}
}
//-->
</script>
<body onLoad="MM_preloadImages(
containing both redundant javascript and <body> tags.
I'm sorry to say, I don't think that this site is ready for prime time yet.
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"mhaddon" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
news:dp3k3o$qv4$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> We have just gone live with our new site. We used layers and some CSS.
> To a
> certain extent, with slower connections, the site loads piecemeal. I
> would
> appreciate input and advice on the site. Are there ways to keep it from
> loading so piecemeal or do you think it is ok? Please give comments (or
> suggestions on how we can fix it up a bit). Thanks in advance!
>
> mhaddon@utah.gov
> www.justice.utah.gov
>
>
>
| |
| darrel 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| Oh, forgot to add:
If you MUST have fly-out navigation (I discourage it as much as I can), then
there are really only two viable options that will begin to meet good
accessibility standards:
http://www.udm4.com (quite accessible, a bit pricey, lots of code)
http://www.projectseven.com (fairly accessible, nicely priced, including
tutorials on how to build it for free)
-Darrel
| |
| mhaddon 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| Thanks for the input. Obviously, we only do the website as a side thing -
predominantly we do justice research for the State of Utah. We don't have
money to hire a professional developer. So, we were just using what Macromedia
had to offer. We want a site that really looks nice and is easy to get around.
We have found, with our limited knowledge, that the only way to really control
fonts (to make the page look the way we really want) is to use graphics. We
have tried to really limit their size in Fireworks, then give them ALT tags in
Dreamweaver. I am really discouraged by the feedback I am getting. Is there a
way to get the same look we have (fonts, colors, and everything) without using
images? Other sites look awesome with nice fonts, colors, graphics -- and they
load well and probably meet your criteria. What are they doing that we need to
learn? Thanks again for your assistance.
| |
| darrel 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| > We want a site that really looks nice and is easy to get around.
> We have found, with our limited knowledge, that the only way to really
> control
> fonts (to make the page look the way we really want) is to use graphics.
Yes. And you wanting to control fonts is an accessibility and usability
problem. It's best to avoid it...especially when it's a .gov site.
> I am really discouraged by the feedback I am getting. Is there a
> way to get the same look we have (fonts, colors, and everything) without
> using
> images?
Don't focus on looks. Focus on content, usability, and accessibility. The
looks will follow naturally.
Can you control your layout/fonts 100% to your liking? No. It's impossible.
It's not in the nature of the web. But you can do a lot with text and CSS
and still have it look great, yet still much more accessible and usable.
> Other sites look awesome with nice fonts, colors, graphics -- and they
> load well and probably meet your criteria. What are they doing that we
> need to
> learn?
I think you need to redo the site, but work backwords. Start with good,
clean content, then add to that and build your site up.
The biggest mistake a lot of organizations do is to design the look of the
site prior to anything else. This leads to the exact problem your group has
encountered.
Unfortunately, as you stated, you don't have the means to work with an
actual web developer, which puts you at a rather large disadvantage, of
course.
-Darrel
| |
| Murray *TMM* 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| However, for someone who is not primarily concerned with building websites,
you did a good job - really. The issues that Darrel and I have raised are
not things that the casual Dreamweaver user (or the casual anything user)
would know about or even think of when doing this. Your problem is that you
are a government agency, and as such you are required to meet certain
accessibility standards - we have already pointed out to you what those
problems are.
Is there no way that you could hire someone who does this professionally?
--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"darrel" <notreal@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dp3p36$3pn$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>
> Yes. And you wanting to control fonts is an accessibility and usability
> problem. It's best to avoid it...especially when it's a .gov site.
>
>
> Don't focus on looks. Focus on content, usability, and accessibility. The
> looks will follow naturally.
>
> Can you control your layout/fonts 100% to your liking? No. It's
> impossible. It's not in the nature of the web. But you can do a lot with
> text and CSS and still have it look great, yet still much more accessible
> and usable.
>
>
> I think you need to redo the site, but work backwords. Start with good,
> clean content, then add to that and build your site up.
>
> The biggest mistake a lot of organizations do is to design the look of the
> site prior to anything else. This leads to the exact problem your group
> has encountered.
>
> Unfortunately, as you stated, you don't have the means to work with an
> actual web developer, which puts you at a rather large disadvantage, of
> course.
>
> -Darrel
>
| |
| Michael Fesser 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
| ..oO(mhaddon)
>Thanks for the input. Obviously, we only do the website as a side thing -
>predominantly we do justice research for the State of Utah. We don't have
>money to hire a professional developer. So, we were just using what Macromedia
>had to offer. We want a site that really looks nice and is easy to get around.
The current site looks quite nice, but is unusable. Have a look at it
with a text browser to get an impression what we mean. And the way it
looks in a text browser is also more a less what a search engine will
see. That's not much on your site at the moment.
> We have found, with our limited knowledge, that the only way to really control
>fonts (to make the page look the way we really want) is to use graphics.
Why do you think you need that much control? That's not going to work in
the WWW. If you really need such control then you should do DTP and make
a PDF, not a website.
>We
>have tried to really limit their size in Fireworks, then give them ALT tags in
>Dreamweaver.
Attributes, not tags.
>I am really discouraged by the feedback I am getting. Is there a
>way to get the same look we have (fonts, colors, and everything) without using
>images?
Except for the fonts - yes. But what's wrong with some slightly
different fonts on the user's machine? That's the usual way and the
common way millions of websites work.
> Other sites look awesome with nice fonts, colors, graphics -- and they
>load well and probably meet your criteria. What are they doing that we need to
>learn?
They pay more attention on the content and on usability. Design and
layout comes _after_ that and should never be the major priority when
building websites.
Micha
| |
| darrel 2005-12-30, 6:28 pm |
|
> However, for someone who is not primarily concerned with building
> websites,
> you did a good job - really.
Yes, good point, Murray.
The nitpiks we're pointing out are all 'under the hood' and are much less
obvious for beginners to pick up on. They're very important, of course, but
not necessarily intuitive out of the box.
> Your problem is that you are a government agency, and as such you are
> required to meet certain accessibility standards
Nope. The ADA legislation applies to FEDERAL agencies. Unless Utah has it's
own state laws, there is nothing legally requiring that they adhere to
accessibility standards. Even the federal regulations have a GIGANTIC
loophole, that basically states 'if you don't have the budget, don't worry
about it' which, IMHO, is ridiculous, but it is what it is, I guess.
HOWEVER, ADA laws, in general, still apply, and having an inaccessible web
site is an opening for a lawsuit, which could be rather embarrassing for the
judicial branch of government. ;o)
> Is there no way that you could hire someone who does this professionally?
Point out the lawsuit issue with your IT staff, and, ideally, your judge
committees (as they'll respond to that type of potential bad PR). That
should get you the funds to bring in an accessibility consultant.
And feel free to ask questions in here. As a fellow .gover, I have lots of
interest in the accessibility issues.
-Darrel
| |
| darrel 2005-12-30, 6:29 pm |
| > They pay more attention on the content and on usability. Design and
> layout comes _after_ that and should never be the major priority when
> building websites.
Just a terminology nitpick, but it should be "VISUAL design and layout comes
after..."
Content, usability, accessibility...that's all design too.
The problem is typically too much of an emphasize on visual design to the
detriment of all the other design considerations that need to go into a web
site.
-Darrel
| |
| Michael Fesser 2005-12-30, 6:29 pm |
| ..oO(darrel)
>
>Just a terminology nitpick, but it should be "VISUAL design and layout comes
>after..."
>
>Content, usability, accessibility...that's all design too.
>
>The problem is typically too much of an emphasize on visual design to the
>detriment of all the other design considerations that need to go into a web
>site.
Agreed.
Micha
| |
| Gary White 2005-12-30, 6:29 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:52:33 +0000 (UTC), "mhaddon"
<webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the input. Obviously, we only do the website as a side thing -
>predominantly we do justice research for the State of Utah.
As others have said, you've done a very nice job designing the pages.
It's just your implementation of that design that needs work. Perhaps
you should start with a visit to one of the links at the bottom of
*your* page: http://www.utah.gov/accessibility.html
Gary
| |
| Alexander Ross 2005-12-31, 6:16 pm |
| > For starters, most of the text on your home page is image based. That
> means I can't resize the type to a readable level.
Not to mention, Google (etc...) is not going to be able to search through
your text and your users will have a hard time finding you .... just one
more reason to make sure your text is text
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|