May 07, 2004 | View Comments (29) | Category: Design Critiques
Summary: The W3C redesigns their validator site and I really don't like it. Let's help them to improve it.
Eris pointed me to the new W3C Validator site. Monday I will post a redesign of the validator site, but figured I would like hear what everyone's thoughts are on it. Monday I will also follow with a critique of the site because this organization deserves so much better than what they are showing. It seems they tried to go “pretty” but forgot that their site is just for validating. It doesn't need pretty.
After five consecutive beta test periods, a new version (v0.6.5) of the Markup Validator was released today. This maintenance version of the popular service introduces significant improvements in user-friendliness, thanks to improved documentation, usability, accessibility, as well as new features such as community-contributed error explanations and user-friendly fallback mechanisms.
Glad to see they improved the underlying technology. I appreciate the effort. So in return I think we should begin to help them with everything above the hood. What would you do better?
This discussion has potential to be extremely useful or extremely useless. I prefer useful.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/231
Hmm, it looks like a half-eaten, rotting banana to me.
I don't remember what the site looked like before (so it's hard for me to compare). All I can say right now is that I can't believe they have blue link text on a reddish blackground - it makes my eyes go crazy!
Jennifer Grucza (http://jennifergrucza.com)
I have been informed that it is a banana peel. That explains everything. In my opinion I don't see a need for any images besides maybe the Validator buttons and logos. Does the text look kind of faded on anybody else's monitor?
And the navigation doesn't show you where you currently are.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
I think the current layout works well, distinguishing each error and making it easy to see at a glance whether a page was valid. However, a LOT can be done to improve. The colors could be made more functional, and it could all use a nice aesthetic facelift. And just look at that form... That's not something *I* feel like filling out, let alone looking at.
That said, big thanks to the unpaid, volunteer developers for improving this vital technology. We just need a few right-brained people on the team to complement the left-brains. :)
Chris Vincent (http://dris.dyndns.org:8080/)
I don't have any major "beefs" with it. The main purpose/function, validator, still stares me in the face. That's all I care about. I could care less how the site looked as long as I can still use it for what it's meant to do.
Yes, the navigation font does look a bit "faded".
Grant (http://threesixty.cc/)
I don't mind the images. One at the top and one at the bottom certainly isn't overpowering They prettify it quite nicely.
I like the liquid sizing. The site is simple, easy to follow and does the job.
One thing I would alter is to not specify any fonts, so they default to the user's settings.
Peter
I don't think it's that bad (compared to what they had before), but then again I've just briefly looked at it. It does look a bit funky and amaturish. It does seem a bit clearer to me though.
You know there has been quite a bit of talk about the W3C and the usability of their sites. It's good to note that they are doing something about it.
Coincidentally I've got a meeting today with a few folks from WCAG to talk about how those guidelines can be improved for designers.
Hopefully some good will come from that, I do know what they're looking toward is better than what is there now.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
So, why does it need to be prettified? The only part of that site anyone, is going to pay attention to is the errors found, and that looks fine.
The half-eaten banana shows me the team behind this has a personality, and the only thing I would change from a "front-end" approach is the blue hyperlink in the not valid banner.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
being on a modem, i like to avoid useless images. i can't see any reason for those images to be there, neither of them add anything to the site, and neither is even a good photo.
i would like to see time put into the typography of the site. on a site where the main element is text, more work should be put into the text than just letting it all be default.
i may take a crack at redesigning it myself..
ak (http://www.alexkeeny.com/simplicity/)
Well its good to know that they have the right intentions in mind. I agree that the site shouldn't have to be stunning or well-designed and in fact I mention that in the post. But there are some fixes that would greatly help and that is what I am looking to do.
If we wish to encourage people to use a tool we might as well make it look inviting. Same thing as open source software.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
The fact that they named it "banana skin" still makes me laugh. Sense of humor? Oh yeah, they've got one.
eris (http://www.erisfree.com)
I use a modem and the graphic didn't hamper me at all. Without the graphic it would look boring to some of the millions of visitors. And of course the deep meaning of the banana skin is, I think, universal.
Peter
I don't know, the question is WHY? Does the validator need graphics? It looks like Eric Meyer spent about half an hour on it. I'm not suggesting it was actually his work, but it's what I'd image he might come up with on a coffee break or something :)
jim (http://graphikjunkie.com/)
if anyone cares, i've been working on a redesign of the validator (mostly out of boredom).
you can see what i've done (and still am doing) at: http://www.alexkeeny.com/validator/
ak (http://www.alexkeeny.com/simplicity/)
I have revealed my shallowness by saying the banana skin connotation is deep and meaningful. That's probably why I've only just cottoned on to the W3C sun shining and revealing the wood through the trees. Or at least that's my understanding.
Alex, I don't like your graphics! They aren't telling me things that are difficult to put into words.
Peter
It's okay-ish, although they really need to make the "Validate by URI" and "Validate by File Upload" headers/legends any color other than blue, since they've established blue as a link color.
The "Jump" menu is badly implemented... the first link, "Results", does what you'd expect it to do -- Jump to the Results portion of the page. However, the other two links bring you to entirely different pages. When I see "Jump", I always assume it means a jump to a section within the same page.
Sage
The fresh air is strong tonight! I keep seeing things! Not only are there darkness and light, winter and summer, wood and trees, the W3C sun also shines on what also looks like a golden slipper. Great play on words too - golden slipper = banana skin. And which one person in the whole world could most afford golden slippers? So they are also predicting the end of IE, if M$ don't conform wrt standards.
The graphics must stay! They are positively awash with metaphor, or simile or innuendo or whatever the word is.
Peter
For some reason, I am getting tired of the whole logo in the left corner lets put a picture in the right corner mentality. I am guilty of it on my gamecube site, but as I began building css layout site, that was the easiest for me to do. I want to branch out and try different things. I don't have a problem with the logo in the left corner. It often makes a site look very professional if other aspects of the site work with it, but I hate it when it seems a random "scenary" picture is placed on the site.
I mean, what is the point of having a sun shining through the tree's image? Its a validator's website, not a site about the mating habits of the woodpecker.
just my 2 pennies
Bryan (http://www.gamecubecheats.info)
You know, there are so many godawful stupid things about the w3c to complain about that pissing and moaning about a couple of useless graphics on their website redesign is a little silly. It's like complaining about the president's hairstyle or tie when he's joking around (mov file) about "weapons of mass destruction"
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Any plans for a Version 2 contest for either the W3C site or the validator site? I think those would be fun sites to remake.
Josh Jarmin (http://www.radiantrock.com/blog/)
From their code it looks like they're in quirks mode.
I think the web site is great. It finally shows that the people at the W3C are human beings.
As for the layout, it's clean and easy to find things. That's all I care about when I go to that website.
I assume by the 0.6.5 , that they'll continue to make small modifications to the website. There are a few issues with some of the coding (which effects the site visually), but i'm sure they'll fix it soon.
Robert Lofthouse
It is not a random scenery image or a random banana skin image. Do you really think W3C would do that? At first sight it looks like the purpose is just decoration. This may be all it is for many people. But when you look again you notice the top image is not a normal nature scene. The right side is like winter, the left like summer. It is two or three or four pictures joined together.
Why? Well it could be just to balance the top left, but I doubt it. Why go to that trouble just to balance the design? "Can't see the wood for trees" is the only saying that springs to my mind when I ask 'why trees?' But then that makes sense when you think of the welcome we all give to sunshine after showers, light after darkness, summer after winter, clarity after confusion, good standards after bad standards. So for people trying to make sense out of markup, the top graphic reinforces their aspiration.
The bottom graphic has a deep shadow implying a strong light shining on the banana from the left where it just happens to say W3C Validator Team. Coincidence? And why that particular banana and background? The background echoes the colour and gradation/shading at the top but goes a little further - light, dark, light again. Changing seasons? It also has a woody texture. Natural vs artificial? Organic standards vs enforced ones? And is it just me that sees the golden slipper as well as the banana?
As for typography, the site needs to be clear and easy to read for millions of people. If 10% have reading difficulties or disabilities of some kind, that could be 100,000 people (W3C will know the figure but it will be a big one) who will feel excluded if they have trouble reading the text. They've obviously gone for a clear sans serif font, but I think they could go further and not specify anything, so the users effectively choose the font they prefer. This is consistent advice on Dyslexia sites I have seen. But perhaps many users don't yet know they can set their browser's font preferences, or perhaps for many their employers, whose machines they are using, do not allow font changes. So that could be why the not very exciting sans serif.
I agree about header and menu colours, the lacking "Your are here" indicator and link confusion.
Peter
Why would they go to such lengths to make metaphors with the banana peel, etc., but ignore the problems with the header colour? Doesn't make sense.
Agustin
"Can't see the wood for trees"
I have never in my life heard anyone use that saying... "can't see the forest for the trees," yes... wood, no. Are you sure you didn't make that up? :-)
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
Agustin - Perhaps one person did pictures and one the headers. You refer to header font colour? The header and menu backgrounds are exactly the same as the backgrounds on Whitespace in my browser.
JC - Where I come from we say wood for trees meaning the same as forest for trees (which I have only ever heard rarely)
Peter
I'm really starting to think some of you have gotten your golden slippers lost in the W3C trees with some of these comments...
Paul, what happened to the in depth thoughts you were going to share about Method?
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Ahhh, thanks for reminding me Mark. Lemme get those out this week as well. I need to get a calendar.
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)
"Where I come from we say wood for trees meaning the same as forest for trees"
Ahhhhh, I get you... wood as in forest, not wood as in what trees are made of... I was reading it as the opposite of what it means, that you can't recognize the details/potentials for looking at the big picture or something. :-)
JC (http://thelionsweb.com/weblog)
i personally think the form improvements and design is much better. i don't really see the relevance of the images and they don't fit to great, but it does add some character to the design.
the navigation at the top does help to find things easier, as personally i know they had some links, but they didn't jump out as much so i never cared about them.
all in all i like the changes, sure it could be improved though :)
flump (http://flumpcakes.co.uk)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
My quick beefs:
Fonts
Images (what is that thing at the bottom?)
Scrivs (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/)