Comments on: Home Inspection for the Web Consultant http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/ Tips and Commentary on Web Accessibility, Usability, and Search Marketing best practices. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:19:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Joe Dolson http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/#comment-1162 Joe Dolson Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:57:21 +0000 http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/#comment-1162 I'd relate the issue to ease of repair, too. A skippable splash page, for example, although minor, is also extremely easy to remove. Simple layout tables, on the other hand, are more pernicious: settled in throughout the design, possibly on hundreds or thousands of pages... It's a tough issue, since ultimately I'd prefer to fix everything, but the practical issues sometimes get in the way. It's hard to decide what issues make a site actually "hazardous" to use - but I think you're definitely on the right track. I’d relate the issue to ease of repair, too. A skippable splash page, for example, although minor, is also extremely easy to remove. Simple layout tables, on the other hand, are more pernicious: settled in throughout the design, possibly on hundreds or thousands of pages…

It’s a tough issue, since ultimately I’d prefer to fix everything, but the practical issues sometimes get in the way. It’s hard to decide what issues make a site actually “hazardous” to use - but I think you’re definitely on the right track.

]]> By: Stevie D http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/#comment-1158 Stevie D Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:59:28 +0000 http://www.joedolson.com/articles/2006/10/home-inspection-for-the-web-consultant/#comment-1158 That's an interesting analogy! I know a lot of accessibility and usability proponents (me included) have a tendency to go mad and expect every tiny thing to be fixed before considering a website worthy, and equally I know that's not realistic in a commercial setting. So what kind of issues would you classify as "outdated" rather than "hazardous"? I'm guessing that it would include "features" such as simple layout tables, accessible frames, skippable splash pages, some degree of non-semantic code ... how does that fit with what you'd put on the list? That’s an interesting analogy! I know a lot of accessibility and usability proponents (me included) have a tendency to go mad and expect every tiny thing to be fixed before considering a website worthy, and equally I know that’s not realistic in a commercial setting.

So what kind of issues would you classify as “outdated” rather than “hazardous”?

I’m guessing that it would include “features” such as simple layout tables, accessible frames, skippable splash pages, some degree of non-semantic code … how does that fit with what you’d put on the list?

]]>