Supersonic Feet

With the hype over Web 2.0, it's funny how many online advertisers are still using the same crass techniques of the web's earlier years. Within a minute of each other, I just got hit by three of the most annoying advert types while checking two websites.

I loaded up an article on the Sky Sports website along with Blue's News in separate tabs. Looking at Blue's News first, there was an irritating buzzing noise.

"Oh look, it's a Flash advert in the top right corner inviting me to zap a bug and win a laptop". It's at this point I could no longer care less about what gaming news goodness Blue might have to offer me and went to close the tab - as I do, a pop-under sneaks its way open. Marvellous. So they've irritated me enough with one ad that I'm closing the window without ever getting to the content of the site and now as I leave they find another way to motivate me in looking for a better site to read about upcoming computer games.

The pop-unders have actually been on Blue's News for a while and I generally work around them, but today's double-whammy just about does it.

OK, so that was an annoying website that stopped me in my tracks. Back to Sky Sports...

"Goodie, a floating Flash advert obscuring the article content" I think to myself (or is that just what the advertisers and webmasters expect us to think?). I was lucky this time and the 'close' link actually did get rid of the ad, but so often with these absolutely-positioned Flash ads the close link doesn't work properly and you either have to reload the page in the hope the ad won't show next time or just give up.

Given that both of these sites are driven by their content, why are they allowing adverts to hinder me in getting at that content so much? The Sky Sports one is the only that actually does prevent me reading the text, but the two on Blue's News do just as good a job in making me leave as fast as possible. When it's accepted (I'm pretty sure there's actually proof, but can't point to it now so I'll not go that far) that people are much more likely to click on relevant text ads, why are we as site visitors still suffering with obtrusive, irritating advertising? Is there some mad majority of the population that actually responds favourably to having the content they're trying to read obscured by an advert that they'll actually change tack (from trying to read the content) to clicking the ad and then buying whatever it sells?

As I mentioned in my previous post, at work we're moving a lot of clients to new hosting. Due to a very silly system at the old hosts, that means we have to transfer the domain names to a new registrar as well as they won't let us just point at another host's servers. We're using 123-Reg to transfer the domains to, and today I logged in to find a new site design.

It's quite a pleasant design, but what really got me is that it still uses frames. The layout is such that frames aren't even a natural thing to use. It looks like what's happened though, is that while their front-end site has been re-designed in nice tableless code with CSS to handle presentation as should be, the back-end domain management area isn't so easy to re-code/-style. So they stuck it in a frame.

I'm hoping that is the reason and that they're working on doing the management area properly, because if they've actually chosen to use frames on a fresh build, especially with the new layout they've used, it's madness. It does (hopefully) drive home the point about writing semantic, valid code though. If the original site was written semantically, they could just write a new stylesheet and have their new design implemented much more easily and quickly (aside from any actual content/functionality changes of course).

123-Reg have made a good step forward with their new site, the main 'sales' part being mostly valid HTML, with 'skip to content' links, etc. so they (or their designers) do seem aware of the need for standards-based coding, let's just hope the job gets finished :)

Philipp Lenssen just posted a nice short piece on how Google's homepage would stack up in filesize when written in XHTML Strict compared to its current invalid HTML, Google Strict vs. Google Deprecated.

I have to second what he says - any argument for keeping deprecated code based on filesize is quite silly. Valid XHTML (almost?) always reduces file size and both download and render times. Philipp's XHTML version comes in smaller than the current live Google version at 2.86k compared to 3.08k. Not a big difference, but multiple it a few million (billion?) times for all the traffic Google gets and it mounts up.

Where I think you'd see a much bigger difference is on the actual search result pages. With much more data (all in tables, which beef up code size quite a lot), the difference should be much more marked. Aside from that, I imagine that the results pages are seen much more often than the homepage. With more and more browsers having search bars alongside their address bars, people will increasingly not use the actual front page of search engines as they go from a small input box in the browser itself to the results page.
The results page would be harder to code in XHTML with CSS and still degrade properly in very old browsers (something Google has to think about more than most), but I'm sure it could be accomplished. Things are mad at work as we move a couple of hundred websites to a new server, but if I get the time and inspiration before someone else does, I might have a go at it as it's very interesting.

As part of my work at Net Effects, since Christmas last year I've been working on a new online shopping system wherever other client work allows. For a good few years, Net Effects have run an online shopping site called UK Shopability but when I joined the company last year they had already started getting a bit fed up with the old system.

The old Shopability suppliers stopped doing online mail order recently, having been bought out, so the decision was made to start a new site to re-launch the whole thing, working with the main distributor of disability products. And thus was born Disability Warehouse, an online shop for disability-related products.

We opened the site up to orders a couple of days ago and already a few have been coming through despite not advertising the site yet, so it's looking good.

The site uses AJAX in places (mainly for adding an item to your cart and admin functions), though this is a site aimed at users with disabilities so it degrades properly if JavaScript is turned off and just submits a form the old-fashioned way. Some bits of the site are still being fine-tuned (e.g. product images that are missing), but the site is ready to go which is why it's now open to sales without much fanfare - we'll get a low volume of real sales to start to make sure everything really does work (it does so far!) before we ramp up to inviting all the many customers over from the old Shopability site.

Browsing StyleGala this afternoon, I spotted a link to an article about the rise of awareness in corporate Britain of the need for accessible websites. 'Great news' I thought, clicking the link and reading the article.

It basically seemed to be a bit of PR for some company called Tridion (can't say I'd ever heard of them), who make content management software for large corporations and have partnered with Reading Room, who are going to use Tridion's latest stuff to make accessible sites.

That's all spiffy, but I searched for Tridion's site to see what it was they were doing to make these marvelous accessible websites and found a website done partially in tables, that fails the Section 508 and WAI accessibility tests. I can only hope it's Reading Room that have the accessibility expertise and that they're just relying on Tridion for the back-end stuff.

Why am I picking on these people? I realise this post might seem a bit harsh, singling out a company when there are plenty doing far worse, but from what I can see they've decided to put themselves out there as people making these great accessible websites for organisations like Christian Aid. That's fine - PR is PR and I have no problem getting a bit of free publicity by providing comments on new regulation/standards (the apparent initial point of the article) - but if you're going to do it, at least cover the bases. If you're going to announce to the world this great new partnership making accessible websites, make damn sure your own website passes basic accessibility tests (working properly in more than Internet Explorer would help too).

There seem to be plenty of people claiming standards-compliant, accessible design these days while not actually quite living up to it. Just yesterday I read a post on 456 Berea Street about how 71.8% of CSS Reboot participants failed XHTML or CSS validation (or both). For an event meant to showcase standards-based design that's pretty poor (though to be fair to the organisers, it's not something they canreally control until the launches happen and even then it'd be a LOT of work to go weeding out any and all non-compliant sites).

It's not always possible to adhere 100% to standards, especially as the standards aren't always cut and dried, but stuff like avoiding table-based layout and providing alt tags for images are a seriously low entry point that many still aren't managing.

Rant over :D