CHI-WEB Archives

ACM SIGCHI WWW Human Factors (Open Discussion)


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Reply To:
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 10:33:22 -0000
text/plain (81 lines)
For people like Kathy who are designing for world wide public access, there
is definitely a different criteria than for people like Derek and myself
who are designing for a specific target audience.

As with magazine publications, "Know Thy Target Audience" is key.
Frames are very appropriate for our target audiences, as our customers
spend enough in market research of their "target audiences" to know what
they want.

There is definitely ar market for higher end technology, as there is for
higher end furniture.  This is why Ethan Allen is growing, and Levitz
furniture is going bankrupt.

Land Rovers aren't for everyone.  Nor are they going to design their site
for everyone.
Land Rover uses frames.  This is a very talked about site,

Elizabeth Gee

Human Factors Engineer
Corillian Corporation
[log in to unmask]
The only thing we can be sure of, is Change.    -I Ching

-----Original Message-----
From:   Gill, Kathy [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Friday, February 05, 1999 11:08 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: Frames pros and cons

> From:         derek bambach[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:         Friday, February 05, 1999 10:23 AM
> At 10:21 AM 2/3/99 -0800, Gill, Kathy wrote:
> >
> >Frames are part of the spec but with caveats -- and some of us wish that
> the caveats were more strictly required. Most framed sites do no meet
> recommended code -- ie, they don't provide alternative entry (proper use
> <noframes>).
> i thought the <noframes> tag (and the no-longer ubiquitous "no frames
> version" link on lots of entry pages) were there to provide an
> to people with a *technological* limitation - that is, for people running
> (mostly) 2x browsers that didn't support frames - not for people that
> simply didn't like frames from a usability perspective.
My guess is that the rational was universal accessibility -- the foundation
of the Net's philosophy, and, I believe, it's appeal

I believe you are forgetting folks w/braille or voice output -- as well as
public libraries and freenets running Lynx -- as well as the millions of
NonUS citizens on the net -- many of whom do not have the "latest and
greatest" technology - hardware or software.

It's not the numbers (%) with high end technology, it's the access.

This is especially important for sites built w/federal money (US) and for
sites that provide info employees must have to do their jobs -- ADA.

> derekj
> PC user
> Mac owner
Cute ... I used to be able to say ditto, but I also own a compaq now.
Multiple Mac owner, tho.