next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
> &g Hi David Your observations are quite in keeping with the concept of the internet, and the underlying principles of Mosaic, Netscape and Internet Explorer. Individuals should have the right to choose for themselves. But information providers have 'rights' too. As a design principle, I think we should endovour to accommodate both sides. With advancements in browser functionality, it is getting easier to meet this objective. Just as we can now redirect users to an appropriate page for the browser being used (text, graphic), we could also provide other tranparent, or user friendly options or preferences. A standard option could be to allow users to defer to their browser default settings. (bgColor= vlink= text= link=). This could be user-selected from a drop-down menu or button imbedded in the page. With the precidence capabilities of Internet Explorer, the user-selected option can be carried forward to CCN-linked pages. See http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Chebucto/webmaster/vLink.htm Note: This is not intended to be a solution to implement. It is meant to demonstrate capability. I'll leave implementation to the page authors. A second option could be to allow users to select the language to be displayed. With the current design, we are getting away from the positive initiative to provide bilingual (multilingual) services. As you may be aware, there are on- line translation services and software available to accommodate this option. And there are many other possiblities. The point here is that it is technically possible to provide these services. When web pages are designed, these possibilities should be considered. Designers often don't consider alternatives because they are not aware they have a choice. On the other hand, we still have to consider the provider side of the question. There are design elements that the provider promotes as a site identity. To the majority of visitors this identity should be the default. An options (preferences) function is provided to accommodate an individual requirement (e.g. visually impaired). It should be encumbent on the minority visitor to reset the option. If we standardize our page design to meet all possible individual requirements, we would only be offering a text-based service. We can provide choice - either transparent, or a selected preference. And that is our challenge. Doug Quoting "David L. Potter" <potter@chebucto.ns.ca>: > > Hi Doug... > > I've not bumped into this before... or at least not noticed it on other > sites... as an individual surfing along and finding myself on a page > such as the webcam page (for example) how would I know that I could > change the colours... and how would I do it (especially if I was > having trouble with the colours)? Would I have to be a 'regular user to > know/be bothered to invoke it... as a one time or ocassional web visitor > would I bother to change the interface or just leave in frustration...? > > Even if all of those questions have a positive answer, I not sure I see any > > significant benefit. From a design perspective, our 'known look and feel' > only works if the individual has 'normal' vision, for all others, the > look and feel is 'unknown'. > > If we design our pages to display well with the browser defaults (this > becomes our known look and feel) then I would say we've done our job... > whatever the user wants/needs to see should really be left to them should > it > not...??? > > As a fundamental design principle, I'm not sure that it makes a lot of > sense to me for us to settle on an interface design that is known to give > our users/visitors problems...? I would think that would qualify as a > fundamental flaw in the the design. In the least, if there is a need for > 'work-a-rounds' to accomodate individuals with a disability it would be a > stretch to consider it a 'friendly' site. > > dlp > > > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 aa935@chebucto.ns.ca wrote: > > > Hi David > > > > By imbedding a user interface option creates an environment where CCN can > > > create a web page with a known look and feel, but also permits users to > > customize the page to meet individual requirements. > > > > If we use the general default options, then CCN pages will have an > unknown look > > and feel. For example, we have a light blue <td bgColor=#deeee1> trim. > If a > > user were to set their default vlink to the same color then a followed > link > > would 'disappear'. > > > > The number of users who would require a customized interface should be > small. > > By offering a customized option, we are meeting special needs without > imposing > > upon the general population. > > > > The solution presented is only important in its concept, that it is > possible to > > create an interactive options menu. Since it may not function with all > > browsers, then we should explore other scripting possibilities (Visual > Basic, > > c++, etc.). > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > Quoting "David L. Potter" <potter@chebucto.ns.ca>: > > > > > > > > Netscape 4.73 produces javascript errors... however, isn't this > > > effectively the same effect as using the 'users' default colour scheme > > > with the small added challenge that we're making them figure out > another > > > way of changing the colours...? > > > > > > dlp > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 aa935@chebucto.ns.ca wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all > > > > > > > > Earlier this month when Donna presented the problem regarding > followed > > > links > > > > (vlink) colour, I threw down the challenge to allow users to > customize > > > colour > > > > selection. > > > > > > > > For a solution see > > > > > > > > http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Chebucto/webmaster/vLink.htm > > > > > > > > I've only tested this with Internet Explorer 5. > > > > > > > > The underlying function can be adapted to modify bgColor and other > BODY > > > > attributes. > > > > > > > > Doug McCann > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Donna Randell <drandell@chebucto.ns.ca>: > > > > > > > > > Hi - just back from vacation and wanted to follow up on this > > > discussion....