10 comments

  • Walter King

    From my understanding, blacknegative.com is the website of a film and advertising firm used to display past works. I agree that this is rather difficult to infer and that it would be helpful to have a more straight forward about page. However, this ambiguity is just a product of their focus on artistry and elegance in the design of their website. The larger issue with blacknegative.com is that it does not give all users equal opportunity and resources to comprehend its content. It cannot be navigated with keyboard input, subtitles are not provided with videos, and much of the text has very little contrast with the background. While the vagueness of blacknegative.com may be simply a function of artistic design, the lack of accessibility is not.

    • Aaron Acee

      I spent about 5 minutes trying to navigate this website to find its purpose to no avail, so I agree with Kelsie that before you should even think about WCAG requirements, you should make sure that any user, handicapped or not, should be able to understand your purpose. when deigning a website. There were many slides that stated what blacknegative.com is, but all they would say is “Telling Fascinating Stories” and “We make the web a better place”, but these are just way too vague. Maybe its because I’m an engineer and not an artist, but I do not like things to be vague.
      Hitting more on the prompt of the blog, I agree with Walter that this website does not give equal opportunities to to all people to access its content. There are no keyboard shortcuts, and no videos with subtitles. Most of all, the way to navigate the site is different than most other websites. You need to hold the mouse and swipe to the right. For someone with visual impairment, there is no way to tell how to do this.

      • Lauren Yeap

        In addition to the website being extremely vague, there does not seem to be any connection between the slides at all which makes it even more difficult for the user to grasp the purpose of the website as a whole. For example, one slide is a Ralph Lauren campaign whereas another is a cartoon about a sock. There is absolutely no link connecting these two videos. In addition, the videos themselves were difficult to navigate because there was no pause button; the cursor just turned into an “X” symbolizing the closing of the page making the site even less accessible.

      • Parth Mandrekar

        I agree with Walter this website does not really help all users. But after reading Aaron’s comments I also realized that this website really does not help anyone at all, including visually adept people. Kelsie mentions in her video, “It’s like the team split up made their own pages and mashed them together.” There is no telling why there are Bose products mixed with talking socks.

        But what I also think is important to think about is still perceivability. All of the comments above mention that with a little difficulty learning to navigate the website, they still overcame this and were able to navigate through the website. Visually impaired users would definitely not be able to overcome this barrier so easily. Screen readers often pick up on text on the screen which varies greatly from page to page on the blacknegative site. As a result the accessibility for blind users greatly diminishes.

      • Confidential Confidential

        I definitely agree with Aaron and Walter. It is imperative that a website be able to convey is theme/purpose prior to even being able to make the website in compliance with WAGS. I think that the creators of the website were so focused on capturing the artistic aesthetic that they wanted to convey and completely alienated and neglected many users, including those that are visually impaired. As I indicated in another comment I posted, it is important that the website be screen reader friendly, and the current website only allows for certain things to be picked up from the screen reader (not enough for users to fully comprehend).

    • Jessica Grimmett

      I agree that the website’s lack of navigational and multimedia alternatives poses a problem in terms of accessibility. However, Kelsie does bring up a good point. Even if the website were to incorporate subtitles, captions, and keyboard navigation options, perceivability would still be an issue. It lacks “real” content, which makes is difficult for the user to understand Blacknegative’s purpose. In order to correct this, information must be added to the website. Only after this can modifications be made that ensure that the site complies with the WCAG.

    • Kelsie Anderson

      Walter, I find your perspective to be very intriguing. I did not fully consider the idea of the ambiguity as being a part of the design itself. I too agree that the larger issue that I may have overlooked is the accessibility of the website to others. There are multiple design issues that could be improved.

  • Pravallika Tadikonda

    I completely agree with Kelsie how this website had so many different varieties of content, and it was very hard to decipher what the purpose of the website was. I would have disagree that this website does not help anyone, like most of the comments state. I believe the purpose of this website is to show many examples of website design, and each page, as well as the menu, is one of those examples. I only think this with the mindset of someone who goes on many design websites. However, most people do not have that type of mindset, so it is wrong for the creator(s) of this website to assume such. Also, my guess could be completely off, but I do think it is important to take focus away from the content a bit.

    I also feel like the sound is totally misused in this website. If my guess were to be correct, the serene music in the background does not make too much sense. Overall, it needs many changes to be clear to the audience what this website does.

  • Thomas Cummins

    I agree that this website just has too much going on for it to be easily perceived. The purpose of the website isn’t immediately clear as it just used ambiguous statements on each slide. I understand that this website is designed to be a showcase of web design, but I don’t believe they did a great job. Yes, it is beautiful(I too thought it was a photography website at first), but it simply isn’t functional enough for widespread use. You briefly touched on how difficult it would be for anyone that is blind or deaf. I definitely agree with this as there were no captions on images or subtitles on the videos.

  • Catherine Felix

    I believe that the website, though a little overstimulating, did in fact have a purpose to it’s maneuverability and almost over dramatic method of scrolling through the site. The company itself is, at least I believe, to be perceiving itself as being able to explore different avenues of looking at an image/an edit, and create something out of that. Using this idea, it would make sense that they would want to try and have the user almost “see how they see” with the control of the pages. However, it does cause confusion that the user would more than likely be better off not having, and try to be more usable versus being artistically creative.

Leave a Reply