The Good, The Bad, The Ugly (Blacknegative)

The Good

Blacknegative is original; like no website I have seen before. The setup of blacknegative allows the user to view the individual pages full screen with extraordinary resolution. The information is presented in a way that is very aesthetically pleasing and a video of the woods automatically plays creating a pleasant atmosphere for the website.

Aesthetic Image from Blacknegative

Aesthetic Image from Blacknegative

The Bad

It seems that this website focused seamlessly on aesthetics and not enough on usability. According to WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) a website should “Make all functionality available from the keyboard”. When you first open the website all that is presented is the title and a small font and an icon saying to drag to view projects. After a second I figured it out but I didn’t like how awkward it felt dragging the screen. I tried to use my arrow keys as an alternative but was surprised to find that it didn’t work. As you move your mouse things immediately start to pop up which is very disorienting. There is also no text transcript for the audio and video. This is a setback for accessibility because people who may not be able to hear or someone whose computer does not have speakers have no way of accessing the material or receiving the information.

Opening Screen

Opening Screen

The Ugly

The website has several instances in which the background is not separable from the words trying to be expressed, which is against WCAG guidelines. It is an obvious flaw causing things to be made unclear. The user interface is just uncomfortable. The program is sharp and extremely unique. The negatives outweigh the sheer aesthetics though. The website should be accessible for the blind with audio ques and it should be accessible for the deaf with captions and video transcript. The biggest problem with the website was how it was not universally accessible for all users. Instead of being an innovation for easier navigation and accessibility it became too complex and difficult for users, thus overshadowing how visually appealing the website was.

Prompt for Blog Forum 3: Assessing the Accessibility of Interfaces

One of the principles of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is that the content should be perceivable (that is to say, that information and user interface components must be presentable to users in ways they can perceive) to all people regardless of their abilities. For your third and final blog post, you are required to choose one of the three websites provided below and evaluate the accessibility of the website for a specific audience of users. To what extent does the website meet the principle of perceivability? (The evaluation of perceivability is the substance of your claim.) What kinds of challenges do you think specific users may encounter on this website? What evidence exists in support of your claim? (Think about how you can use screenshots of the website and sound clips to illustrate your most important points.) Finally, what recommendations would you make to improve the accessibility of the site for the specific users. (These recommendations point to the significance of your claim.)

Posts due October 19. Comments due October 21. Remember that your post must be an audio post if your first two posts were primarily written. For an example of an audio post that uses sound to enrich the argumentation, see Nina Moorman’s post for forum 1 and Itzel Trejo’s post for forum 2.



GATech’s Writing and Communication’s TECHStyle:
Black Negative:!/loader/
GATech’s Office of International Education:

1 2 3 4