Monday, September 26, 2005

Response to your responses.

Since your responses were so long, I thought I'd take the time to actually respond in some detail. Enjoy. ^_^ Alan: Notice that I said "pretty much any code you desire". Of course it doesn't support everything, but I don't think people would expect that anyway. It's necessary to balance the desire for customization with the need to have a unified and secure environment. In regard to your comparison, I think it's worth mentioning a few key points. Firstly, as I stressed in my last post, people who are great with coding and who are prepared to invest in a domain and hosting are unlikely to choose myOtaku over a different service. That much should be obvious. myOtaku is primarily designed for people who do not have knowledge of web code and who are not prepared to invest in setting up domains and hosting on their own. However, myOtaku is still relevant to those who do have knowledge of web coding. Just because a user has experience with coding does not mean that they are willing to go and shell out for a domain and hosting tomorrow. It doesn't work like that. In addition, many people do not necessarily even want to have their own site - perhaps they don't update often enough to justify the investment of time and money. Or perhaps they don't want to invest the time gathering a new audience and setting up a portfolio system of their own. Under such circumstances, myOtaku is an ideal solution. I think it is important to understand the distinction I am making there. You are correct in saying that myOtaku isn't really a competitor to other blogging services in the most raw sense, but myOtaku is also relevant for a wide variety of users at the same time. In regard to your comments about IE and Safari...I think you are missing my point. As I explained, there is value in developing primarily (or only) for these minority browsers. If your entire audience uses Firefox and if you are only intending to capture a very limited audience, that is 100% fine. However, if you are physically blocking IE users and if you are expecting people to install a new browser just to visit your site, then I would not regard that as strong design in any sense. I also think that many web creators do not understand the danger that attitude poses to their future growth - most people simply aren't going to make such a change on the strength of one site, especially if they feel that the site is alienating them as a user. For you, it's perfectly fine to say "fuck the consequences". You have a limited pool of users who are all operating on the browser of choice for your site. For a site like ours - or for any larger site - this is simply not an option. Obviously, if we decided to drop all IE support tomorrow and focus entirely on Firefox, the network could probably collapse. Finally, your statement about CSS and IE support. What you've told me there is nothing new. I understand this problem and I'm aware of the difficulties that IE brings with it. But what you have to understand is that from my point of view, a web creator needs to work around these difficulties. If it is necessary to sacrifice a technological feature in order to make the site more widely viewable, I think that's a reasonable compromise. If a site is relying on something like drop-down boxes in order to maintain a streamlined functionality, then I would submit that the site is already relying too much on technology and not enough on good design. (You may want to read John's comment on my last post, where he pretty much summarized what I was saying about IE support). It is important to recognize that technology is not an end, but a means. It is a vehicle through which you deliver a service. As a result - and if you are designing a mass-market site - the technology should only be seen as a tool to deliver the ideal experience to users, regardless of the browser they are using. So if someone were to tell me that they cannot support IE because it won't let them use drop-down boxes, I would tell them to find an alternative that works just as well and maintains ease of use. Finding alternatives and improvising in order to ensure a strong experience for all users is the essence of good design - this is true not just on the web, but in many different industries and markets. Tony: Yep, I agree 100% with what you're saying here. My intention is not to suggest that all web creators need to follow the general philosophy that I've set out. Obviously, if you're a site where 90% of your users are running Safari, then it makes sense to cater to your userbase. Similarly, if you are trying to be accessible to everyone on the Internet, it is absolutely critical to have cross browser support, with an emphasis on Internet Explorer. My feeling is that many people who support minority browsers are doing a good service, because they are creating content that will work perfectly with those programs. This can only give more incentive to Internet users to try out these alternative browsers. But of course, if the ultimate goal is to be user friendly for many people, it is ridiculous to alienate the majority of the Internet on something as inconsequential as a drop-down menu or some other CSS-related feature. It would be a bit like Microsoft saying that you won't be able to use Xbox 360 unless you have an HDTV. Sure, HDTV is probably optimal for the best picture, but at the end of the day it's something that makes the game slightly prettier. Is it worth alienating most users on the strength of a minor aesthetic issue? I would call that a poor design choice. So I think you can see what I'm saying there - I think that example can be applied to the use of any number of web-related technologies, whether we're talking a CSS feature or Flash or something else. The main thing is, I think people sometimes get the user-creator relationship mixed up. There is a sense that the creator is in charge and that the creator must dictate what people need to see and use. But in reality - and if one is working professionally - it's quite the opposite. As a creator it is most important to cater to the end user as much as possible - to satisfy their desire for ease of use, for functionality and effectiveness. As mentioned, this obviously does not apply to very small niche sites that are catering to a particular group. But as a general rule, whether it's on the web or in any other design industry, I think it's very important. DDG: Me too, I hope that it makes the entire network a bit more manageable. ^_^ John: Bingo. That's what I was getting at on that point. A good designer needs to work around issues like that, rather than simply cutting off the majority of users. But of course, that's if we're talking about a site that holds broad accessibility and ease of use in high regard. That is why I felt that many sites claiming to be developed with these things in mind are actually self-contradictory in terms of the way they've come out at the end.

Comments (3)