Date:
To:
From:
Re:
September 13, 2002
The members of the Communications Committee
Thomas Hetherington, Alternate Media Specialist, DSPS
The Prototype CCSF Web site
I’m sorry for having missed the recent meeting. I wrote the wrong time in my calendar
and by the time I realized my error the meeting was over. I did prepare some material to
present however and I will summarize that here.
First as to the question of Web accessibility for students and others who are blind, have
low vision, or are otherwise disabled, some questions to ask are:
Is the new site accessible? Can it be made accessible? Can we meet our legal obligations
in this regard?
The thing to understand here is that almost any Web site can be made accessible. The
prototype already has most of the necessary accessibility features coded in. I will gladly
check it over when a final design is settled on and give my recommendations if any to Joe
Jah before the site is uploaded. So the answer here is, “Yes, the site will meet minimum
legal accessibility requirements.” That can be documented as well to show that we are
making a ‘good faith’ effort in this regard.
This does not mean that the entire site will be accessible of course, just the sections in the
re-design. We will have to continue to work on getting the individual office and
department sites up to code so to speak.
Next question: Can the site be further enhanced for accessibility, that is, beyond the
minimum legal requirements?
Yes. There are things that can be done to enhance the site for accessibility. For example,
a text-only version of the main page can be created. In some versions of the prototype
that I have seen, there is also a set of redundant text links at the bottom. We can have a
site map or index that is all text. Those are approaches that help people who have the text
size on their browsers set to a higher than the default. However none of these would be
required and many sites don’t use them. Given the fact that there is not much time left, I
think we should leave the question of enhancements, if any, to the design committee and
just ensure that the basic requirements for accessibility are met.
As for the more general questions of design and usability (warning: kibitzing now in
progress), my main criticism of the prototype site is the use of frames for the interior
pages. For the meeting, I prepared a document on reasons for not using frames and I will
append a revised version of that document here.
Arguments Against the Use of Frames
The proposed CCSF Web site re-design uses frames for all interior pages. The frame is
designed to provide navigation to the other sections of the site and is a bar that goes
across the top of the screen. An automated script will apply the frame to all department,
office and personal sites on the CCSF server although it can be manually turned off on
any given page. There are a number of reasons why frames are generally not used in this
way.
Usability
Web designers typically try to design a clear navigation scheme for each site. A
navigation bar automatically placed across the top of every site page presents a second set
of navigation links that are not related to the primary site links. It is bound to cause
confusion. In effect it is like putting a second steering wheel on a car or having a book
with two tables of contents.
When a CCSF department or office Web site is added to the favorites list in Internet
Explorer or the bookmarks list in Netscape, the favorite or bookmark will only have the
title of the framed page. In other words, if you bookmark several pages from different
departments and offices, they will all say “CCSF” instead of “Library” or “Catalog”. The
bookmark will link back to the correct URL but in the bookmark/favorites list it will say
only “CCSF”.
The navigation bar will take up about 20% of the screen space on a 15-inch monitor set to
800 by 600 pixels, which is a typical configuration. As a result, the rest of the page is
pushed down. Some department and office homepages are designed so that all links are
visible without scrolling. This will push some of those links below the bottom of the
screen.
Design
Most department and office web pages at CCSF are carefully designed with particular
color schemes and layouts. The navigation bar across the top, particularly one so
prominent and brightly colored will conflict with the design of nearly every page on the
site.
Accessibility
The use of frames presents a hurdle to disabled students who use screen reader software
or who cannot use a mouse. Blind and vision-impaired students who use screen readers
must negotiate transition from frame to frame to use the site. This is not impossible if
Web accessibility features are coded in but is generally considered to be nuisance. The
use of frames is legally allowed, for example, under section 508, but is usually
discouraged.
Common Practice
The use of frames deviates from modern common practice in Web development. Visit for
example, several different college sites and see if they are using frames. Chances are you
won’t find even one site that uses frames. Go to the most visited sites on the Web
(Yahoo, Google, MSN, Amazon, AOL, CNN, etc.) and you will notice that frames are
not being used. Draw your own conclusions!
Alternatives to Frames
The best and simplest alternate to frames used in this way, is to enforce the policy that
every CCSF department and office site must have a link back to the CCSF main page.
The link should be a logo or phrase that appears in the top left corner of the main page of
the site. For the sake of consistency the choice of logos should be very limited, perhaps
just one dark colored logo and one light colored logo.
It should be noted again that the navigation bar does have a ‘remove frames’ button but
why not really remove it by not using it?
*********
I know I have participated here in the crime of ‘design by committee’. Frankly everyone
has his or her own ideas about what makes a good site and these are just my own
opinions. Actually, I think it is great that people are trying to improve the site and
hopefully one day the school will hire a full-time designer—perhaps a ‘Design Czar’ with
godlike powers—who will assume full responsibility for it.
Thomas Hetherington, September 13, 2002.