Brit Mansell :: Life’s Influence on Design

Watch Video on Vimeo

Presented by Bill Abel on September 4, 2008, at the IPSA meeting for September.
For more information on the Internet Professional Society of Alabama, please visit ipsaonline.org.

Filmed with a Canon XH-A1.

I have finally found a Mac driver for the UV Plus+ by EVGA. Now I’m not constrained to only two displays on my McBook. So, now for $99 (or less online) you can hook up an additional display to your laptop, or desktop for that matter.

More information: http://www.mostlygeek.com/2008/06/22/multiscreen-macbook-pro/

Download drivers here: http://www.displaylink.com/mac_beta_drivers.html

I’ve been under a huge time crunch to get a brand identity done for Octane Media. It’s finally here.

Logo:

First Event T-Shirt Design:

Business Cards:

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making websites 100% accessible and W3C compliant, but I see this used as a crutch a lot of times in the web design world. Often times designers rely on the “it doesn’t work with screen readers” comment to sell their less than stellar designs; designs that are diluted to obtain W3C compliance or “accepted markup patterns”.

This post is out of frustration more than anything. I just read a great post from Smashing Magazing about vivid imagery in web design. To me, it is an inspirational post that sparked a deeper analytical look into this type of design approach. But, low and behold, the first comment posted (probably by a 12 year old who knows nothing about design) says, “some nice images… means nothing to screen readers.” If this was the first time I had seen this type of attitude I would have dismissed it as an ignorant comment from someone uneducated about the web design/business world, but sadly I see this being repeated by even some of the most notable designers in the industry today. This attitude is what I’m complaining about, not the comment on the post.

At the end of the day, we, as web creators, are here to serve our clients. It is our magically ordained duty to do the best job we can in helping meet their objectives on the work for which we are being commissioned. It is not our job to always cater to the lowest common denominator (visually impaired, color blind, etc.).

In the perfect world, all sites would degrade nicely into an unordered list of perfectly marked up content. But, alas, this is not a perfect world. WAKE UP PEOPLE! Why is it seen as such a travesty to cater to the majority of users versus the minority? Please don’t read this as me being insensitive to the needs of certain users, but please read this as me being proportionately sensitive to them along with those who are not impaired in any way.

For example, I race motocross, or did until this season. Last year I had a wreck at a race and dislocated my elbow (because I left it laying on the track for someone to run over). I had surgery on it a few months ago, but for whatever reason it hasn’t healed properly. I am unable to ride now, or at least for any longer than a few minutes. Should I go to the race promoter and other participants and demand that the race only last five minutes just to cater to me? That seems unreasonable, right? Why is this web design topic any different? My elbow injury is preventing me from doing something that I love and has been a big part of my life for the last 20 years, but it is my burden to bare, not theirs. They should not suffer because of my impairment.

If a client commissions my company to build a website, we will do our best to help them achieve their conversion goals. If one of the conversion goals is related to being 100% degradable and W3C compliant, then so be it, but we will not sacrifice performance, design, or functionality just for the sake of saying we’re a W3C compliant shop. In the end, we work for the client.

Please let me know your thoughts.