Stephen Poley wrote:
Good advice is frequently given in c.i.w.a.* on page structure:
matters such as separation of content from presentation, graceful
degradation, non-dependence on Flash etc. For some while I've
wondering whether that could be transformed into a layered model:
something that would help people to form a mental picture of how a
complex page should be put together.
I've had a go at this:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/pagemodel.html
It's not that easy to get the concepts over concisely though. I'd
appreciate feedback, both on the model itself and the way it is
presented. Is it something that could be useful to people trying to
achieve wide accessibility?
Your article was one of the most thought-provoking I've seen for some time.
Devising such a model is an excellent idea. (I wish I had thought of it!)
One thought was that it lacked a context. We probably feel we know what the
context is, but it might be worth stating it. Let's see if I can express it.
A web site exists (presumably) to provide the user with a set of valuable
transactions/interactions. So, what is seen on the screen, or rendered some
other way, is the *result* of one transaction/interaction, and provides a *set
of opportunities* for more transactions/interactions.
Perhaps everything you talk about can be judged in these terms. What is the
value to the user of any particular transaction/interaction? What is the value
of the opportunities presented to the user for further
transactions/interactions? How well are those opportunities for further
transactions/interactions conveyed to the user?
This means that everything seen by the user must convince the user that it was
worth doing the last transaction/interaction, because of the value. And that
it is worth staying with this web site because of the value of future
transactions/interactions. So if there are few further
transactions/interactions on the page, the immediate value must be high. And
if there is no immediate value on the page, the conveyed value for further
transactions/interactions must be high. The site contents, the site
navigation, and the individual pages, must all be designed to maximise those
factors for all of the target audience.
All the technologies used (Flash, frames, images, animated GIFs, Javascript,
and all the rest), and other factors (layout & presentation, etc) should
contribute to those values. Any that don't - for the target audience - should
be abandoned. Does "X" make a user feel that s/he was right to link to that
page? Does "X" help a user link to other pages? If not, what is it there for?
The elements of your model need to fit into the above. One way is to increase
the value. (All sorts of layout & presentation factors increase the value).
Another way is to reduce the cost of delivering the value. (Effective use of
technology can do this). So anything that improves the immediate value, or the
opportunities for more links, or reduces the cost of supplying these, is good.
That might be where "separation of content & presentation" fits -
cost-reduction. While style-enhancement increases value.
I'll have to think more about this. But here are 4 pages I've written about
the subject "content versus presentation". I don't believe that this is really
understood, nor that we have the technology we need.
"Separation of concerns"
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articl..._presentation/
--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/ http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/ http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/