Visionary Design Awards - Winners
Home / News & Resources / Visionary Design Awards - Winners
Posted on Accessify for your pleasure ...
http://www.accessify.com/...
_________________
Build Your Own Web Site the Right Way!
A beginners' HTML/CSS book with web standards at its heart
The Ultimate HTML Reference
A complete reference, in glorious hardback
Share: 
Well I thoroughly enjoyed myself. I'm now going to disect all the winning sites to see exaclty how we can improve and get up to their standards.
It certainly outlined to me that text-only versions of sites are still favourable and that web standards and accessibility are by no means the same thing. Some of these sites had some really nifty features to enhance screanreaders (Man United) and other's looked pretty shoddy on the visual front but evidently function amazingly with screenreaders and magnifiers.
One of the blind speakers at the event uses 'Supernova' as it combines a screen reader with a magnifier. We've tested on that here and it's a bit of a bummer but it doesn't read CSS layouts at all well. It's the only screanreader we have problems with. In fact, most of the winners (if not all) were using tables based sites and it was these that won the awards.
The thing we wrestle with is building sites that follow web standards and are also highly accessible. I think its now a case of the screenreaders catching up with the trend for CSS sites. Of course with things like Jaws we can hide the CSS but this does seem to be an isolated case and we can't assume everybody uses Jaws.
Congratulations to all the winners. See you again next year (hopefully).
Share:
We had a good time there too, and were pleased to see the numbers present, and that we're not the only ones banging on about accessibility as a web design agency. We built the YourMoneyBeWise site, which is not specifically aimed at vision-impaired users, nor does it have a text-only site. We stick to the standards too -- all good CSS and valid HTML. We were very pleased to be shortlisted, but were a little disconcerted that 'access-for-all' was not the key message. Ah well, there were some great sites there nevertheless, and hopefully the awareness of the importance of web standards will be stronger next year.
Did anyone pick up what was happening with the two DDA court cases the the RNIB was supporting? I didn't get a chance to collar Julie.
Big congratulations to all the winners, especially Rushcliffe Council -- it's about time that some local authorities started taking accessibility seriously.
N.b.: if anyone's interested in passing work back and forth with us to ease the feast/famine of accessibility testing/building, please get in touch!
_________________
Liam McGee, www.communis.co.uk
Share:
| LiamCommunis wrote: |
| Did anyone pick up what was happening with the two DDA court cases the the RNIB was supporting? I didn't get a chance to collar Julie. |
Both settled out of court a few months ago. No names, no details of the settlement.
Share:
| guyweb wrote: |
| It certainly outlined to me that text-only versions of sites are still favourable...Some of these sites had some really nifty features to enhance screanreaders (Man United) and other's looked pretty shoddy on the visual front but evidently function amazingly with screenreaders and magnifiers. |
I've always been of the opinion that offering a text only alternative was both a cop-out and a misinterpretation of what it is to be accessible. Surely the reason council buildings have wheelchair ramps at the front of the premises is to say "everyone should be able to access this facility with the same degree of parity" - and isn't a text only site the equivalent of reluctantly shoving a piece of plywood up against the back door?!
All this having been said, and much as it sticks in my throat (from a purely footballing point of view...) to say it, it's good to see organisations as large as Man Utd thinking about this sort of stuff, and if their approach is liked by the panel, then we should sit up and start taking notice. One major plus for offering a link to a text only version has always been that you are very prominently saying "we care - look how much we care...!"
| Quote: |
| web standards and accessibility are by no means the same thing...
One of the blind speakers at the event uses 'Supernova' as it combines a screen reader with a magnifier. We've tested on that here and it's a bit of a bummer but it doesn't read CSS layouts at all well. It's the only screanreader we have problems with. In fact, most of the winners (if not all) were using tables based sites and it was these that won the awards.. |
This presents us with a problem not just because we've spent months (if not years) re-educating ourselves in the joys of pure CSS/XHTML, but because in order to convince clients that either accessibility or standards compliance are important, we need to be able to be able to talk about them both in the same breath. Some clients will care about making sure they don't have to fork out another few grand to make sure their site works on a PDA, others will be more worried about stories they've read about companies being sued for having inaccessible sites. At no point am I trying to pretend to our clients that accessibility and standards compliance are the same thing: what I'm saying is that they are as important as each other, and can be complimentary issues.[/quote][/b]
Oh and finally, shouldn't we be talking to the manufacturers of Supernova to let them know their product isn't doing us any favours?!
Share:
Hello there
I hate to start with an apology, but I don't do forums too often, so this may be a brief call
I've read with interest the comments about the awards, and am so glad to see the spirit in which these comments are made
I am, I hasten to add, a seriously shell shocked and greatly overwhelmed winner of one of these awards, having designed The Bradshaws site.
I will try not to discuss technical terms, the rights and wrongs, but I thought I'd give you a little insight into who and what, as far as we are concerned
The Bradshaws is a radio comedy sketch show, syndicated out to various radio stations mainly in the NW, that as far as I was aware, had two visually impaired fans
When I took on the re-design of the site some 6 months ago, I suggested to Bradshaws creator Buzz Hawkins that we have an accessible version, because basically as workaholics, we like to be thorough in our work and conscientious about all the people who take interest in our work.
I work out of a box room. I am a one man band, '£50 for my mates' web designer. I did The Bradshaws site as return favour as Buzz provided me with studio time to record an album of my songs.
I never offered the site for any awards, not even the local council website awards, nor did I attach any Bobby certified logos or get wizzy with html code - I simply used what was to me a bit of common sense, allowing simplicity in design to provide a gateway to what is, in The Bradshaws, a brilliant and very entertaining concept.
I hope this doesn't sound arrogant because quite simply that is not my intention. I am merely stating that this was the mindset I worked with, this is how it was done.
Now I have to be honest and say that a big part of me thinks it was a lottery ticket job and we got lucky. I will say though that on Tuesday at the ceremony, when I got to meet the person who had nominated us, and the joy she showed when we won, I took a glimpse back at how much work and care I did put into not only building that site, but stripping away all the 'rules, do's and don'ts that the 'accessible web design police' have thrown our way, so that I could simply concentrate on creating a straight line for our site visitors to follow.
You see, having visited Bobby's site for instance, I have yet to really come to terms with it because to me it is inaccessible - it has the fault of many web tech sites in that it gets carried away with it's terminology and leaves many a newcomer to web design feeling overawed.
Now some may say with our site there's a cop out on some points design wise, and take issue on how the site may fail in certain areas. Fair play to you, we all need to be aware of faults and ways to improve. But from my point of view, having provided a path of least resistance, you need to be considering the way in which you develop a personality for an accessible site, and the way in which you make it just as entertaining and dynamic as an all singing, all dancing flash site.
This is where I think we made it with The Bradshaws. There are audio samples, down to earth interviews with both a cartoon character and it's very modest creator, and in it's plain speaking and in places characterised use of language, it seeks to have a real, living, breathing and 'up for it' personality.
My modest knowledge of accessible web design has come from many sources, and I've yet to find an accessible web designers Bible ... so if anyone can recommend one??!!
My final word has to be admiration - admiration for all the people who have added their voices to a message, who have made accessible web design a credible art form that is destined to go from strength to strength, and made a newcomer like myself feel a part of something important, essential. Yes we have our own interpretations, and maybe I got a little bit lucky with mine on this occasion - the standard as has been reported, was very high - but nevertheless if the accessible web design community continues in the friendly and good hearted spirit that I read in the comments above, I am very honoured and humbled to be a part of it.
May you achieve your goals in your work
Share:
I hate to sound nasty in anyway but without naming names, some of those winners are questionable to say the least. The people that gave out these awards, what did they base it on, what are their qualifications and experience for making these decisions?
Share:
I agree, there is no clear criteria for the judging of the awards. However, there is a page of 'tips' on the Visionary Design site (http://visdesign.nlbuk.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=10&page_id=3):
1 - Use the ALT attribute to describe graphics and other non-text items
2 -Ensure good contrast between text and background
3 - Use style sheets to control screen appearance
4 - Ensure text associated with links makes sense out of context
5 - Provide a text site map
6 - Ensure that the size of all text can be altered with browser controls
7 - Give frames meaningful titles. Ideally do not use frames
8 - Avoid absolute positioning
9 - Warn users about new windows or pop-ups
10 - Make sure all multimedia elements are optional and provide a text alternative
We should also remember that the awards were NOT for sites that are accessible to all. They were awards that concentrated soley on blind users of the internet. Making a site accessible to the blind is only part of the point of making a site accessible. The winners were judged by blind people using the tools available to them. They did state that all the sites entered were of entremely high quality. A brief reason why each won was given by the MC and the quality of the content itself - how interesting it was etc was often a deciding factor. So while a site can be thoroughly accessible to the blind, if the content is dull it wont cut much mustard!
I think it would be useful to really understand what the criteria is for judging before next year's ceremony. It would also be useful to understand the angle and point of the awards. Are they to promote accessible design and raise the profile of the techniques or to serve as a recognition of sites that engage the members of the National Library of the blind?
Share:
| Darren Poyzer wrote: |
| I've yet to find an accessible web designers Bible ... so if anyone can recommend one? |
No, but if it's any help someone asked a similar question of Internet Magazine this month. I can't remember which books their guy named, but he listed some he liked; so you might want to check out his opinion. The question and answer isn't listed on their site unfortunately.
Here's a nice story about books:
************************
Duke Huan of Ch'i was reading a book at the upper end of the hall: the wheelwright was making a wheel at the lower end. Putting aside his mallet and chisel, he called to the Duke and asked him what book he was reading.
"One that records the words of the Sages," answered the Duke.
"Are those Sages alive?" asked the wheelwright.
"Oh, no," said the Duke, "they are dead."
"In that case," said the wheelwright, "what you are reading can be nothing but the lees and scum of bygone men."
"How dare you, a wheelwright, find fault with the book I am reading. If you can explain your statement, I will let it pass. If not, you shall die."
"Speaking as a wheelwright," he replied, "I look at the matter in this way: when I am making a wheel, if my stroke is too slow, then it bites deep but is not steady: if my stroke is too fast, then it is steady, but it does not go deep. The right pace, neither slow nor fast, cannot get into the hand unless it comes from the heart. It is a thing that cannot be put into words [rules]: there is an art in it that I cannot explain to my son. That is why it is impossible for me to let him take over my work, and here I am at the age of seventy still making wheels. In my opinion it must have been the same with the men of old. All that was worth handing on. died with them: the rest, they put in their books. That is why I said that what you were reading was the lees and scum of bygone men."
-- Chuang Tzu.
************************
I still wish I could afford to buy more ...
_________________
Michael
Share:
First of all, Darren, I'd like to offer my congratulations to you for your winning Bradshaws site. I've always liked the Bradshaws - I used to hear them when they were on Piccadilly radio, oh so long ago - so there are no hard feelings there. The use of sound clips is a big plus for blind people.
I agree with a lot of the comments on this thread, though as a runner-up anything I say is likely to sound like sour grapes!
What is difficult to understand is the mixed message that the choice of winners sends out. Okay, the NLB is all about blind people - but is focusing on design that is specifically accessible to blind and visually impaired people much different to designing without accessibility in mind at all? Darren, your intentions are praiseworthy, but your point about Bobby leaving newcomers overawed hits on a point that I feel is pertinent.
Newcomers to web design should be overawed. I would compare it to building your own car - it shouldn't be taken lightly - you wouldn't expect your own car to be roadworthy without a lot of study and understanding of the subject. Too many web designers don't even understand what HTML is or does - see Jack Schofield's Guardian article - never mind getting into the sometimes complex, though mostly "simple when you know how", realms of accessible web design.
If the sites were voted according to their content, rather than accessibility, then my rather boring site about my accessibility business was always going to lose out over a site with comedy clips - despite the fact that, technically, my site is beyond reproach. If you look at the 10 guidelines that the NLB themselves expound, a quick look at the Bradshaws site reveals that it fails on at least 5 of them (7, if I'm being really picky!).
Again, I'd like to state that I have nothing against Darren, but agree with others that some more detail about the judging criteria would be welcome.
Having said all that, I had a great time at the awards and met some great people. Hope to see you all again (and meet the others) next year.
Cheers,
Share:
| ste wrote: |
| Too many web designers don't even understand what HTML is or does - see Jack Schofield's Guardian article |
Sigh ... OK, let's hold our noses switch our proxies on (mine is taking out quite a lot) and visit the Grauniad.
First off, it doesn't mention HTML code or what it is or does at all.
It does, however, mention design....
Known for pouring oil on troubled flames, is he?
At the moment, from what I can see, the accessibility movement and designers are facing each other off. One side is shouting, "Your sites are inaccessible," and the other, "Yours are ugly." So what does Schofield do? He comes running up and throws a large stone, and wrapped around it is a piece of paper on which he has scrawled most designers are children.
Well, in my view the Guardian's website is not as bad as some would make out, but it is no place to throw stones from. As for what he's doing: Well, it's "good copy" (sc. sensational) but is it helpful?
I take that Schofield thinks that adults are unnecessarily abusive and make sweeping generalizations. In view of the large nature of the claims he is making, his article appears sloppily researched, insufficiently detailed, and inadequately referenced. He should either moderate his claim somewhat or substantiate it in considerably more detail. But, I'm forgetting: adults don't need to justify themselves to the children, do they?
_________________
Michael
Share:
Jack Schofield had a column to fill and not a lot to say on that particular occasion.
The man has been fortunate enough to write for the 'online' section of Guardian Unlimited but I expect that he doesn't actually know a great deal about design himself. He's somebody that knows a little about a lot of different IT topics but is not an expert in any. However, when the editor comes banging on his door for an article, he'll quite happily have a pop at any unfortunate site (http://danhon.com/ec/mtarchives/000572.shtml) in order to fulfill his word quota.
The essence of what Schofiled is saying in his 'Are most commercial websites designed by children?' is good (its home page has a 3D ring of five red discs in the bottom left-hand corner. They have no labels so you don't know what they do.) but its hidden behind endless patronisation of children. I'm sure there are plenty of kids who could teach Schofield a thing or two about how the web actually works!
Share:
| guyweb wrote: |
| The essence of what Schofiled is saying in his 'Are most commercial websites designed by children?' is good
[..] but its hidden behind endless patronisation of children. I'm sure there are plenty of kids who could teach Schofield a thing or two about how the web actually works! |
Change "most" to "many" and "children" to "people who have paid insufficient attention to accessibility" and it would probably be true. I'd think you're almost certainly right about children, too.
_________________
Michael
Share:
| Michael wrote: |
| Well, in my view the Guardian's website is not as bad as some would make out, but it is no place to throw stones from. |
No, that's why he used my site as an example instead.
ATB,
Matthew
_________________
Accessible: Live Departure Boards, UK Train Timetables, Odeon no more
Share:
Are you agreeing with just my second clause there, or with the whole sentence? I'd be interested to know if you think I'm right in saying it's really not that bad.
I guess the Guardian could catch the other newspapers up by moving that deprecated font-styling markup into a stylesheet. (But if they had done that, and had done it in the way that would best accomodate 4th-generation browsers, that would have drawn fire, too.)
I not sure their own columnist realizes some of these things can be a bit ticklish. Also, since he is a man who works with words, I wish he'd realized that maybe he should have and express more uncertainty when speaking of visual matters.
_________________
Michael
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum