Web design has been in the news a lot lately. Target has been sued because its website is inaccessible to blind people, and now there's news that grants.gov, the government website designed to streamline federal grant applications, doesn't work with Macs. Nor does the FEMA site where Katrina victims can apply for aid.
There's really no excuse for any of these problems. Not in this day and age, given the ubiquity of free, standards-compliant web browsers.
In the "old days" of web design, designers always had to make trade-offs between desired functionality and incompatibility with various browsers. Both Microsoft and Netscape had taken the original HTML specification and "embraced and extended" it far beyond what the standards authority, the W3C, could sanction. But eventually the W3C caught up, and the browser wars mostly settled down. Yes, Microsoft still likes doing certain things its way, but now that there are viable alternatives to its Internet Explorer browser (like Mozilla's Firefox, along with Opera and Safari for the Mac) becoming used by more and more of the public, programming in Microsoft's Internet Explorer-only code is becoming increasingly ill-advised and unnecessary.
In addition, starting a few years ago there has been an initiative to make websites accessible for people with disabilities. In fact, in 1998 Congress required all Federal agencies to make their sites accessible to people with disabilities. Now, even though Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act doesn't apply to private entities like Target, there's no good reason not to make the websites compliant with the law. The effort it takes to build a website that works in all browsers is for the most part the effort it takes to make them 508 compliant. (Which means it's strange that the grants.gov and FEMA sites won't work on certain platforms. It would make me wonder if these sites themselves are in compliance with the law.)
The bottom line - the bottom line for any web development endeavor - is that it does not make sense to build sites any other way and shut out a large portion of the audience. Now, occasionally it can make sense to decide in favor of some certain functionality that can only work for a limited audience. But those occasions are usually limited to situations where the desired audience is itself a limited one. That can't be said for government sites - every citizen needs to be able to interact with them - and it doesn't seem like it should be said about a major retailer like Target. It wants to be able to sell to the largest market possible. So why on earth would it limit itself to selling only able-bodied people? Especially since it's fairly trivial to make the site work for everyone. In fact, if the site is going to work effectively for anyone it should be constructed in a way that happens to work for everyone. The fact that it boxes out handicapped people suggests that it shuts out many able-bodied ones as well.
When HTML was originally developed it was intended to be a simple mark-up language that would simply permit information to be conveyed over the Internet. The browser could decide however it wanted how to display it - the content wouldn't care. But it turns out that publishers of content did care. They wanted more control over how a page displayed, and so they found ways to manipulate HTML code to force pages to display the way they wanted. This only worked to a point, however, as different browsers still did things their own ways. The point of standards, therefore, was to try to give some consistency, so that a web developer could predict that a page would display the way it was intended on any browser. Ultimately the standards developed so that this result could be best achieved if content was separated from display. Only the basic, textual information would be coded, and then stylesheets would be used to affect how the page would look.
The benefit of splitting page development in this way is that it allows browsers to render consistent content in whatever way is appropriate for it. This means that both Internet Explorer and Firefox on computers can render it, mobile phones can render it, and specialized browsers for the disabled can handle it because they can all have their own stylesheets appropriate for them. If the site is standards compliant, it's well on its way to being 508 compliant as well.
In any case, it is not obvious what Target hoped to gain by using a web technology that wasn't so compliant. The goal of its site is to sell things. To do that it needs to list its goods in a promotional context and provide a mechanism for their purchase. Yes, the page also needs to look nice to make the store look appealing, but there's no aesthetic requirement so severe that could possibly require using an esoteric technology that provides an aesthetic at the expense of its information. It just needs to look nice; it doesn't need to win an art award.
Therefore, at minimum Target's choice is a bad business decision. The question is whether it might also be illegal. It's not subject to the Section 508 requirements, but it is generally subject - at least in the physical world - to the ADA. I'm not an expert on that law, but I would guess it does not speak directly to website requirements. The question then would be whether such a requirement could be construed to apply to its website. Offhand I think there's a plausible argument for it: the policy values behind requiring a store to be wheelchair accessible, so that the disabled aren't shut out from society, are just as applicable in the web context. An accessible website itself can help create the same inclusive effect as physical in-store accommodations -- perhaps even more so because it affords another, potentially more convenient avenue for the disabled to participate in the retail world. Plus it's likely easier to make an accessible site than make an accessible store. In fact, you almost have to go out of your way to build an inaccessible website, in defiance of any sort of best practices. A well-designed website is one that enables its intended audience to interact with it in the intended way. If that result doesn't ensue, the web developer has done something wrong no matter what the law has to say.
Comments (17)
I think that the pressure within marketing departments (and web-site design departments) is to make web sites look as fancy and polished as possible. That often means using tools, such as flash and animations, that aren't part of the basic HTML set, and that don't automatically translate into a machine readble format that can work well for the visually disabled. If the resulting web sites look better than plain jane HTML, then I think that is a good justification for using the fancy tools. Marketing web sites aren't just about conveying information, but are also about conveying that information in an exciting way that grabs attention.
If ADA requires that marketing web sites be accessable to the visually impaired (and I agree with you that as a matter of policy it should-- though I can't come to the conclusion that as the ADA is currently drafted it necessarily does)then web departments should (and must) work on ways to make visually-impaired accessable overlays to their sites. But to say that web departments must stick to plain jane coding in order to achieve this goal doesn't seem right-- and would inhibit the artistic/creative development of web sites for those with normal vision.
Note that this argument doesn't reall apply to gov't sites. There, universal access seems far more important than "looking good." Those sites should use lowest common denominator coding to ensure as universal access as possible-- both to people with disabilities and to people using non-market dominant browsers. The Dept of Ed site should be accessable to freeware browers and shouldn't be forceing folks to use IE-- but if Target doesn't care whether folks with firefox can use its web site, then that this a decision it should be able to make for itself-- and it isn't necessarily irrational for Target to decide that it is more important that its site look really cool to IE users than that its site be accessable at all to Firfox users.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 18, 2006 6:28 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 18:28
Um, Mark? First of all, please don't deign to lecture me about how web marketing works. I had a seven year career as a webmaster in marketing departments. I know of what I speak, I dare say much more than you.
What a marketing department wants is to get its message across. Any marketing department that would chose aesthetic appeal at the expense of its audience being able to receive its message would be grossly incompetent. It is also unnecessary, as perfectly pleasing websites can be built with accessible web technologies.
There is *no excuse* for producing a website that is not standards-compliant or accessible. While it is an open question whether a site that was built before the standards congealed should need to upgrade, no website that is built today should be built without meeting these requirements.
If I as a web manager had recommended building a site with uncompliant technologies I would deserve to be fired.
(Also, for what it's worth, while Flash has its purposes, it is NEVER an acceptable for substitute for (X)HTML in constructing a navigable and informative website.)
Posted by Cathy | February 18, 2006 6:45 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 18:45
No question that you know more than me about the techniques of web design.
However, what you are claiming here is that you know more about the busiess judgement of a major retailer with respect to its web design than do all of the folks in its web design department.
I would argue that collectively, those folks probably do know quite a bit about their goals and about web design. So for you to say that your practices are the rule, and that these folks are incompetent seems a bit difficult to swallow. Perhaps you don't know (or don't understand) their goals.
I doubt that the Target site (and other similar web sites) occured because of incompetence. More likely, they occured because the folks in charge of Target's web design seek to meet a different set of goals (looking cool) than you do (universiality of design).
Collectively, those departments have a lot more experience at creating marketing/retailing web sites for use by the general public than you do (and certainly than I do). And there is far too much money involved for them to be "breaking rules" because of lazyness rather than by intent.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 18, 2006 7:19 PM
Posted on February 18, 2006 19:19
> However, what you are claiming here is that you know more about the busiess judgement of a major retailer with respect to its web design than do all of the folks in its web design department.
Yes, Mark, that is EXACTLY what I am claiming.
When a company wanted to make a web site, I was the person they would ask to figure out how to make it happen. And not just how to do it technically but how to approach it holistically. How to define the project's goals, and then how to achieve them.
If I had not gone to law school, this is exactly what I'm be doing - making high-level web marketing decisions.
And this:
> More likely, they occured because the folks in charge of Target's web design seek to meet a different set of goals (looking cool) than you do (universiality of design).
Still suggests gross incompetence on their part. Not only did they not even have to make the trade off between universality of design and looking cool, but "looking cool" is not a goal appropriate for their business purpose. Their goal is to sell stuff, so anyone who prioritized "looking cool" above that purpose was very, very wrong.
Besides, it doesn't even look that cool. The site suggests that Target actually wanted to make the priority the information quality of the site, and just failed badly at it by making poor choices in its implementation.
Posted by Cathy | February 19, 2006 6:04 AM
Posted on February 19, 2006 06:04
I would suspect that "looking cool" (ie being more attractive to the bulk of users and keeping them excited and on site) could be far more profitable an approach than "universiality" (ie having a web site that can be seen by everyone, but doesn't excite folks enough to stay on and buy or explore). Sometimes it really does make business sense to please some of the people all of the time rather than all of the people some of the time.
I suspect that you would consider this site, which I think is one of the most exciting sales sites on the webm to be virtually blasphemous under your rules: http://www.wynnlasvegas.com/
But I think its pretty cool.
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2006 12:42 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 12:42
"Blasphemous?" Do you really not see any subtlety in what I'm saying?
The web is an information medium. A successful website is one that conveys its message effectively to the audience it's intended for. Sometimes that message is entirely one of aesthetic. Fine. And sometimes it's ok to direct that message at a niche audience. Also fine.
But when the audience you are trying to reach is wide, don't make it impossible for large swathes of it to receive your message. And when that message is one of information, make sure that you actually effectively convey it. If that means compromising on "coolness," then so be it (although I put it to you that it doesn't necessarily).
By the way, I'm not making this stuff up. I can point you to, for instance, the work of Jared Spool who has solid metrics to support what makes a good (read: effective) website and what doesn't. Generally speaking, it's the developers who create their sites entirely from the perspective of what *they* want to make without due consideration for how their intended audience can or wants to use it who end up with unsuccessful ones.
Posted by Cathy | February 19, 2006 1:09 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 13:09
By the way... I stand by the notion that Target probably has some pretty smart folks on their web design staff and definitely employs a lot of executives and managers who well understand the business of retailing and Target's business goals.
I think that you might want to consider how arrogant it sounds for you to claim that all of these folks are incompentent merely because they have come to a different solution to their marketing problems than you think you might. Especially since you reach the concluson that they are incompetent based on very limited information about the constraints they face, the goals they seek, and the specific reasons for their decisions.
Your resume is not unimpressive. But it doesn't show tons of retail sales web experience or any business management eduction. You were well on your way in your career, but I think it is vain to think that you could not learn from others and that your judgement must be right (and theirs wrong).
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2006 1:15 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 13:15
My "arrogance" stems from the frustration that you are, once again, trying to show that you know better than me. It's bad enough when you try to show me up on my lawyering knowledge - as a lawyer yourself you at least are not without some experience in the area. But it's doubly insulting that you cannot acknowledge my ethos in this area, an area where your experience is but a slim fraction of mine, and instead choose to insist that *you* somehow have some insight in this area that I do not.
I have been coding web pages since 1995, professionally since 1997. I have worked for a variety of enterprises: large, small, domestic, foreign, for-profit, non-profit. I have formally studied how people use the Internet and related information technologies since 1992. I have read related literature, I have attended presentations put on by experts, I have joined industry groups, and I have frequently consulted with many other qualified peers. I have seen what works from both a business and technical standpoint, and I have seen what has not. Do I have an MBA? No. But I assure you: having an MBA running the show is absolutely no guarantee for a successful final product. Rather, the opposite often results. If the person defining the project has no knowledge in how to manipulate the technology themselves, nor any insight in how people use Internet technology, no business credential will save the project.
Beyond that, I'm not going to debate my qualifications to speak authoritatively on this subject with you further; I doubt you are at all equipped to judge them.
But fine - you may be right that the people at Target carefully considered who it wanted to target (no pun intended) with its site and DELIBERATELY CHOSE to build one that would exclude large swathes of paying customers. I can't imagine what business justification they might have had for that decision, but if they did have one, then congratulations: they succeeded.
Posted by Cathy | February 19, 2006 2:07 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 14:07
BTW...
My last message was written before I saw your latest post... So it is a response to your prior post "that is EXACTLY what I am claiming" not your most recent "Do you really not see any subtlty in what I'm saying".
I don't doubt that studies exist that support your notion of what makes a good web site. However, to argue that any one set of goals or metrics is so "right" that to do things differently is incompetent strikes me as narrowminded. This is especially true when it seems like your judgment of most large travel or retail web sites would be that they are incompetent... perhaps showing that some reasonable people feel differently than you do.
And, out of curiosity, what do you think of the Wynn site? And does it not break most of your rules...?
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2006 4:11 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 16:11
It's awful. As a user experience it's awful. It took forever to download, spawned new windows, and ultimately didn't work at all.
I SUPPOSE that could be the effect it was going for, but I can't see why. If Wynn expected to either induce or enable me to do business with it, it failed utterly.
Posted by Cathy | February 19, 2006 4:28 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 16:28
This is in response to your most recent post--ie "you are once again trying to show that you know better than me" (sorry for lagging, I seem to be seeing updates after I have written my responses)...
I don't think that I "know better than you." I do, however, often disagree with things you post and often think that you are being too extreme.
I don't know why you enourage comment and debate on your site when you seem to get upset any time anyone disagrees with you or states that they believe there is another avenue that you have missed.
When I see something that doesn't quite make sense (like a target web site that doesn't work quite the way I might like), I try to figure out why it works the way it does and look at what constraints or goals might have led it to be the way it was. You, however, jump to the conclusion, apparantly, that the site was made incompetently. And you assume that if you wouldn't do it the way it was done, then everyone involved in it must be incompetent.
Given the vast dominence of IE (and the fact that everyone has access to IE, even if it is not their primary browser), I can certainly see why a site might be more interested in expanding the experience for IE users than in meeting the demand of lowest common denominator coding. You seem to dismiss this notion out of hand as being fantasy-- but my assumption is that when a huge retailed like Target does something as core as its sales web site, it has some idea of what it is doing. When you become the manager of a Fortune 500 company, then maybe you will have earned the right to call another business incompetent-- but not yet.
Now as a society, we might determine that it is good policy to require that all web sites be accessable to the visually disabled. I wouldn't disagree with such a move. But we arn't installing that requirement because it leads to the best business judgement, we are doing it because as a society we believe universal access should trump business judgement. (and I believe this certainly should be the case for government web sites).
I don't claim much knowledge of web design. But I also don't claim the right, as you do, to insist that others are incompetent at it.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 19, 2006 4:42 PM
Posted on February 19, 2006 16:42
And by the way-- I really do like the Wynn site... And it is clearly an example of a site that was designed by folks who intentionally chose to place coolness ahead of universiality.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 20, 2006 3:23 AM
Posted on February 20, 2006 03:23
Yes, and to an extent that makes sense since what they're trying to sell is an experience, and they want to communicate what that experience will be like.
But you already like Las Vegas; I presume you go to Wynn properties all the time. They didn't need to win YOU over. They did need to win ME over though. I'm not sure I've ever been to a Wynn property, but I do go to Vegas. And they completely failed. Not only did they fail to anticipate my needs for substantive information, but because of how they chose to convey their aesthetic, they ended up communicating nothing to me at all - except an arrogance, actually. I really wasn't at all impressed by a site that didn't behave nicely and instead insisted on popping up all sorts of windows on my desktop. That's the kind of thing that makes a web user *regret* going to a site. Bad call on their part. They still could have conveyed their image in a much less obnoxious way. In fact it makes me think that if visiting their website was such a miserable customer experience, it's not likely that visiting their property will be much better.
Posted by Cathy | February 20, 2006 5:31 AM
Posted on February 20, 2006 05:31
I just had to see the Wynn web site to see what the fuss was about.
Granted, I'm using my wireless card instead of my ethernet cable, and I'm also doing it across that Pacific fiber optic line, but any website that only loads 2% after a minute of waiting is not going to get my attention. And if Steve Wynn doesn't think there's a significant Vegas market out here in Japan, he really needs to hire a marketing research department. (As I recall, he's needed a personal PR department for quite some time now.)
Meanwhile, the Circus Circus website loaded in under 30 seconds. And there was an actual image loaded.
As far as Target and the accessibility angle, their website might be less than ideal, but they're hardly the only ones. The most likely explanation I can think of is that executives fail to recognize that visually impaired people can actually make use of a web browser. Target, being a for-profit entity, shouldn't be sued, since their punishment should just be loss of business (and apparently, bad PR). The real point here should be that public websites must be accessibility compliant, and it apparently fails.
Also, IE is no longer the only solution, and was never the best. More and more people are using non-IE browsers, and as the use of W3C-compliant browsers spread beyond the technically literate population, it will be even more important for websites to stop being IE-reliant. And with the recent trend for the public sector looking towards open-source computing solutions, every web designer should keep all browsers in mind when designing websites.
[BTW, Mark - Mozilla (and so I assume Firefox) loads the Target website just fine. It's just the blind people they forgot to take care of.]
Usability/Accessibility and visual appeal are not mutually excusive goals. Websites can be designed with both in mind (and should).
---Begin frivolous comment section
(Hey, look! The Wynn website finally loaded! I always wanted Steve Wynn to talk to me!)
(I just had to laugh when it took 30 seconds to load text links.)
I think from a design POV, this is a horrible site. The supposed menu up on top doesn't display all the menu options all at once - you either have to wait for it to scroll, or you have to make it scroll faster. And the scrolling arrows are too small. I want an option where if I actually wanted information about the casino rather than just gawk at the so-so web artistry, I can have a narrow-band browsing option. I can't click on a different menu option if I decided that I don't want to wait for the next page to load. Why it takes 45 seconds to load a six-word catch phrase and a two-item submenu is beyond me. I'm sure that the web design team has high technical skills, but they also have no usability skills - I guess their next job is at Microsoft.
Posted by Koichi | February 20, 2006 6:56 AM
Posted on February 20, 2006 06:56
Thanks for the clarification regarding Target's site, Koichi. I suppose I misread Cathy's initial post when I thought that the web site was using special IE coding. But, Cathy, does this mean that you were calling the Target web designers incompetent just because the visually impaired weren't satisfied with the accessability of the web site?
Posted by Mark | February 20, 2006 3:05 PM
Posted on February 20, 2006 15:05
I have skimmed all these comments. Mark I'd agree you should probably read it all again.
I read a blog recently of a guy's grandma told him growing up "there's a reason we were given two ears and one mouth". Perhaps that should extend for web being two eyes, two brain hemispheres?
Not ignoring anyone with special needs of course!
PS: I have no qualifications, except that I can read :)
Posted by David | June 23, 2007 9:21 PM
Posted on June 23, 2007 21:21
Geez... Why the personal insult 14 months after the fact?
Posted by Mark | June 24, 2007 12:14 AM
Posted on June 24, 2007 00:14