<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Web Usability Blog&#187; Accessibility</title>
	<atom:link href="http://webusability-blog.com/category/accessibility/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://webusability-blog.com</link>
	<description>Tips, insights and meandering thoughts about usability and information architecture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:42:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Visa&#8217;s idea of safe: Internet Explorer 6</title>
		<link>http://webusability-blog.com/internet-explorer-6-visa-idea-safe/</link>
		<comments>http://webusability-blog.com/internet-explorer-6-visa-idea-safe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Els Aerts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compatibility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webusability-blog.com/?p=1101</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2010, the only way to get into Visa Online is with Internet Explorer 6. In a business where safety is key, that's not exactly ideal...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Visa describes Visa Online as &#8220;Your one destination for all your Visa business needs&#8221;.</p>
<p>Sounds promising, doesn&#8217;t it? I thought so. Untill I actually tried to get into the <a href="https://www.eu.visaonline.com">European website</a>.</p>
<p>It didn&#8217;t work in Firefox, even though I was using the latest version.</p>
<p><a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/usabilityblognl/screenshotvrijdag/visa-ff3.gif" rel="lightbox[1101]"><img class="alignnone" title="Visa Online in Firefox - not a big success" src="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/usabilityblognl/screenshotvrijdag/visa-ff3-klein.gif" alt="" width="500" height="427" /></a></p>
<p><span id="more-1101"></span></p>
<p>Maybe it&#8217;s one of these sites that only work in Internet Explorer. Let&#8217;s give IE8 a go.</p>
<p><a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/usabilityblognl/screenshotvrijdag/visa-ie8.gif" rel="lightbox[1101]"><img class="alignnone" title="Visa Online in IE8 - not great either" src="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/usabilityblognl/screenshotvrijdag/visa-ie8-klein.gif" alt="" width="500" height="380" /></a></p>
<p>Nope. And it seems like the two guys in the picture are having the same problem. Those are not happy faces&#8230;</p>
<h2>Internet Explorer 6 only</h2>
<p>Wait a minute, what&#8217;s that? Internet Explorer 6 only? They&#8217;re kidding, right? </p>
<p>Apparently the people at Visa realised this is not acceptable. A few weeks after the first screenshot, they changed the page. </p>
<p><a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/usabilityblognl/screenshotvrijdag/visa-wewerkeneraan.gif" rel="lightbox[1101]"><img class="alignnone" title="Visa Online, only in Internet Explorer 6" src="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/usabilityblognl/screenshotvrijdag/visa-wewerkeneraan-klein.gif" alt="" width="500" height="309" /></a></p>
<p>They are now working to add full support for multiple browsers. Isn&#8217;t that sweet?</p>
<p>Safety first!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://webusability-blog.com/internet-explorer-6-visa-idea-safe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Screen resolution statistics and tips</title>
		<link>http://webusability-blog.com/screen-resolution-statistics-and-tips/</link>
		<comments>http://webusability-blog.com/screen-resolution-statistics-and-tips/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Els Aerts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compatibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liquid layout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[screen resolution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webusability-blog.com/?p=430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which screen resolutions do people in Belgium use to surf the web? And what does that mean for your website's layout? ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s amazing how many web professionals don&#8217;t know the basic settings people use to surf the web.</p>
<p>After last week&#8217;s <a href="http://usability-blog.be/gebruik-van-browsers-statistieken/">browser statistics</a>, time now to have a look at screen resolutions in Belgium.</p>
<h1>Screen resolutions: figures from September 2009</h1>
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-431" title="Screen resolution figures for Belgium in September 2009" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/figures-resolution.jpg" alt="Screen resolution figures for Belgium in September 2009" width="504" height="397" /></p>
<p>The figures come from a very big Belgian website. They date from August 15th 2009 till September 15th 2009. The figures are pretty representative for Belgium.</p>
<p>Of course there will always be differences between individual sites but overall, the general tendencies will be the same.<span id="more-430"></span></p>
<h1>Most important conclusion</h1>
<p>What a mess.</p>
<h1>Screen resolution = width x height</h1>
<p>Screen resolution consists of width and height. Let&#8217;s have a look at these two separately.  </p>
<p>For the figures below, I added up the top 100 most popular resolutions. (To give you an idea: number 101 came down to a number of 75 users out of a total of 1.3 million users.)</p>
<h4>Width</h4>
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-433" title="Width" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/Width.gif" alt="Width" width="251" height="175" /></p>
<p>Even more concise:</p>
<ul>
<li>&lt; 1024: 2,03%</li>
<li>1024 &lt;= 1440: 79,26%</li>
<li>&gt; 1680: 5,08%</li>
</ul>
<h4>Height</h4>
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-434" title="Height" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/Height.gif" alt="Height" width="251" height="155" /></p>
<p>What stands out here is that only 4,08% of people surf in a resolution that&#8217;s lower than 768 pixels.</p>
<h1>What do we have to with these figures?</h1>
<p>Obviously you don&#8217;t have to do anything. But you can do lots of things to improve the way your site looks to people surfing in different resolutions:</p>
<h4>Width</h4>
<ul>
<li>If you go for a fixed width, make sure there are no horizontal scrollbars in a resolution of 1024 pixels wide. That way, you only neglect the 2,03% of surfers who use a lower resolution.</li>
<li>If you call yourself a designer, and if you know that a fluid or liquid lay-out is always best, you also know that you should always weigh up the pros and cons of a liquid layout for every website you make. Try to go for a liquid lay-out that is optimized for a width between 1024 and 1280 pixels. Or, if you really want to show off how clever you are, create a liquid layout that looks good between 1024 and 1440 pixels.</li>
<li>Interesting articles on Smashing Magazine on how to apply a liquid layout :<br />
- <a href="http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/06/02/fixed-vs-fluid-vs-elastic-layout-whats-the-right-one-for-you/">Fixed vs. Fluid vs. Elastic Layout: What’s The Right One For You?</a><br />
- <a href="http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/06/26/flexible-layouts-challenge-for-the-future/">Flexible Layouts: Challenge For The Future</a></li>
</ul>
<h4>Height</h4>
<ul>
<li>Put the most important content and action buttons above the pagefold in 768. Take into account the height most users loose by the browser bar and at least 1 toolbar.  </li>
<li>Put less important content lower on the page. The following 132 pixels are still seen without scrolling by 68,23% of surfers. In the area between 900 and 1080 pixels only 30,51% of visitors sees what you&#8217;ve got to offer without having to scroll. Anything below that is only seen without scrolling by 3,85% of surfers.</li>
</ul>
<h4>What about mobile?</h4>
<ul>
<li>Unless your target audience explicitly warrants it or when you&#8217;re absolutely sure it&#8217;ll increase your profit dramatically, we&#8217;d avise you not to optimize your layout for smaller resolutions. Considering the dramatically low number of users in Belgium it&#8217;s pretty much money down the drain.</li>
</ul>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://webusability-blog.com/screen-resolution-statistics-and-tips/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Browser statistics</title>
		<link>http://webusability-blog.com/browser-statistics-in-belgium/</link>
		<comments>http://webusability-blog.com/browser-statistics-in-belgium/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:01:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Els Aerts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Usability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compatibility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webusability-blog.com/?p=399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which browsers and operating systems do people use to surf your website in Belgium? Is Firefox catching up with Internet Explorer? Is Chrome as popular with housewives as it is with geeks? The market share of the different browsers in Belgium. Figures for September 2009.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which browsers and operating systems do people use to surf your website in Belgium? </p>
<p>Is Firefox catching up with Internet Explorer? Is Chrome as popular with housewives as it is with geeks?</p>
<p>And what about the Mac guys and girls? Are they going to take over the world at last?</p>
<h1>Browser market share</h1>
<h2>General figures</h2>
<p>With almost 70%, Internet Explorer is still pretty much king. Firefox has managed to convince around 1 out of 5 people to go with their browser. Chrome and Safari follow at a great distance.</p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-405" title="Browser statistics" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/statistics-browsers.jpg" alt="Browser statistics" width="496" height="391" /></p>
<h2><span id="more-399"></span>Internet Explorer statistics</h2>
<p>The question I know you&#8217;re all waiting for: so what about Internet Explorer 6?</p>
<p>The percentages in the image below show the division between the different versions of IE.</p>
<p> <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-403" title="Internet Explorer figures" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/figures-ie.jpg" alt="Internet Explorer figures" width="496" height="181" /></p>
<p>Translated to the general figures, that means:</p>
<ul>
<li>IE 8: 8,41% of the total number of visitors</li>
<li>IE 7: 51,71% of the total number of visitors</li>
<li>IE 6: 9,38% of the total number of visitors</li>
</ul>
<p>IE 6 is still used by more people than Chrome, Safari and Opera combined. Despite all the efforts of webdesigners and some websites to <a href="http://webusability-blog.com/we-dont-want-your-old-crap/">convince IE 6 users to upgrade</a>.</p>
<h2>Firefox statistics</h2>
<p>Within the group of Firefox users a little over 50% uses version 3.5 or higher. Around 48% uses version 3.xx. Only 2% still uses version 2.</p>
<h1>Operating systems</h1>
<p>Less important than browser statistics but still interesting to know.</p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-404" title="Operating systems figures" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/figures-os.jpg" alt="Operating systems figures" width="499" height="331" /> </p>
<p>Within the Windows group 54,67% uses XP. Vista is at 41,58% and NT still has 2,25% of diehard fans.</p>
<p>Windows 95 is only used by 5 people living in caves. Or possible a cave, the same one.</p>
<h1>Link between operating system and browser</h1>
<p>Do all Windows users use Internet Explorer? And do all Steve Jobs fans use Safari?</p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-402" title="Browser and operating system figures" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/figures-browser-operatingsystem.jpg" alt="Browser and operating system figures" width="499" height="481" /> </p>
<h1> Where do these figures come from?</h1>
<p>The figures come from a very big Belgian website (we&#8217;re talking top 10 here). They date from August 15th 2009 till September 15th 2009. The site in question (no, I can&#8217;t tell you which site exactly) had over a million visitors during that period. So the figures are pretty representative for Belgium.</p>
<h3>What&#8217;s the impact of these figures on your website?</h3>
<ul>
<li>Make sure your website works in the following browsers:
<ul>
<li>Internet Explorer 8</li>
<li>Internet Explorer 7</li>
<li>Internet Explorer 6</li>
<li>Firefox 3 and higher</li>
<li>Chrome</li>
<li>Safari 3 and 4</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Government sites have to be accessible for everybody. That&#8217;s why we advise them not only to make sure that their site works in IE 6 but that the site also looks good. Not pixelperfect, but good.</li>
<li>You&#8217;re a private company? Then you should ask yourself what you stand to gain or lose by not making your site compatible with IE 6. Will it hurt your business if your site doesn&#8217;t look perfect to IE 6 users? Or do you make a point of treating all your customers the same?</li>
<li>Ask your web builder what it would cost to make your website IE 6 compatible. If your website isn&#8217;t bogged down with loads of frills, it shouldn&#8217;t be all that hard.</li>
</ul>
<h1>One more for the road</h1>
<p>If you decide to ignore IE 6, maybe you should ignore Chrome, Safari, Opera and Mac users as well?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://webusability-blog.com/browser-statistics-in-belgium/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hang on to your ego</title>
		<link>http://webusability-blog.com/hang-on-to-your-ego/</link>
		<comments>http://webusability-blog.com/hang-on-to-your-ego/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:54:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Els Aerts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compatibility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webusability-blog.com/?p=237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Attention please: you can only look at this website if your JavaScript is on and if you have installed the latest version of Flash. Please kneel while we grant you the privilege of looking at our magnificent website.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3623945331_f886eddca4_o.jpg" rel="lightbox[237]"><img class="alignnone" title="Only people whose JavaScript is on and who have installed the latest version of Flash are welcome on Agency.be / TBWAgroup.be." src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3623945331_2934565ee3.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="349" /></a><br />
Please kneel while we grant you the privilege of looking at our magnificent website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://webusability-blog.com/hang-on-to-your-ego/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>We don&#8217;t want your old crap</title>
		<link>http://webusability-blog.com/we-dont-want-your-old-crap/</link>
		<comments>http://webusability-blog.com/we-dont-want-your-old-crap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Els Aerts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compatibility]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webusability-blog.com/?p=232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of websites tell Internet Explorer 6 users their browser is dated. That's not the greatest idea. Their browser is their choice, not yours.  ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Imagine if the following happened to you.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re about to fill up your car, an old one, at the service station. All of a sudden, the service station attendant jumps out of his booth to tell you: &#8220;Excuse me, but your car is really old. I suggest you buy a new one. But hey, while you&#8217;re here, you can still fill up.&#8221;</p>
<p>What would you do?</p>
<ul>
<li>Buy a new car.</li>
<li>Fill up and not think about it anymore. After all, the guy did give you some good advice.</li>
<li>Drive off while trying to run over the guy&#8217;s foot to punish him for his rudeness.</li>
<li>Drive off and never come back.</li>
<li>Drive off, over the guy&#8217;s foot, never come back and tell all your friends about the gas station attendant&#8217;s strange idea of service.</li>
</ul>
<p>My guess is it would be one of the last 3 choices.<span id="more-232"></span> </p>
<h2>Only on the web</h2>
<p><a title="IE6 users no longer welcome by AGConsult, on Flickr" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/3621148179_9c29dc31a1_o.gif" rel="lightbox[232]"><img class=" alignnone" title="Internet Explorer 6 users are not cool enough to wear our T-shirts" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3607/3621148179_9c29dc31a1_o.gif" alt="IE6 users no longer welcome" width="500" height="360" /></a><br />
The scenario described above would of course never happen in real life. There isn&#8217;t a shop owner out there who&#8217;d be that stupid.  </p>
<p>But not so on the web. The many users of Internet Explorer 6 are taking a beating lately. A lot of websites are telling IE6 users they have a ludicrously old browser that&#8217;s stopping them from enjoying all the interesting features of their great website. So they should upgrade. Now.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think so.</p>
<h1>Stop pushing your visitors to upgrade </h1>
<p>You are not going to change your visitors. They don&#8217;t have to adapt to you. You have to adapt to them. If you still have a lot of IE6 users among your visitors, make sure your site works in IE6.</p>
<p>In Belgium, IE6 is still used by 1 out of 6 surfers. That&#8217;s not exactly a number you can just ignore.</p>
<p>Do you really think all these people will upgrade their browser to look at your wonderful website?</p>
<p>Have you ever thought about why these people are still using IE6?</p>
<ul>
<li>They&#8217;ve got a computer from work. They don&#8217;t have administrator rights so they can&#8217;t upgrade.</li>
<li>They don&#8217;t know anything about computers. They just use it to surf the web.</li>
<li>They&#8217;re afraid of downloading and installing upgrades. </li>
</ul>
<p>You are not going to change that. Don&#8217;t stigmatise your visitor. Just let him surf on your site. If there&#8217;s a certain feature that really doesn&#8217;t work in IE6, tell the visitor on that particular page. And tell him nicely. Real nicely.</p>
<p>That will help your business. Putting up a big red flag telling people you don&#8217;t like their dated browser isn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://webusability-blog.com/we-dont-want-your-old-crap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meaningful links: a must</title>
		<link>http://webusability-blog.com/meaningful-links-are-a-must/</link>
		<comments>http://webusability-blog.com/meaningful-links-are-a-must/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Els Aerts</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Accessibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Search engine optimisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Writing for the web]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Links]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://webusability-blog.com/?p=95</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Meaningful links help surfers to scan a page, drive clicking behaviour and enhance conversion rates. A reminder why meaningful links are important and some examples.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For over 10 years now, usability experts have been saying links need to be meaningful. Meaningful links help surfers to scan a page, drive clicking behaviour and enhance conversion rates. </p>
<p>And yet, websites and blogs are still littered with &#8220;Click here&#8221; and &#8220;Read more&#8221; links. Here&#8217;s a little reminder, and a few examples, why meaningful links are so important.</p>
<p><span id="more-95"></span></p>
<h3>1. Why meaningful links?</h3>
<ul type="disc">
<li><strong>Links stand out<br />
</strong>Because links are underlined and a different colour, they stand out. They&#8217;re like little anchors for the eye. If our brain registers things like &#8220;<a href="http://www.agconsult.be/en/seminars/usabilityworkshop.asp">Click here</a>&#8221; and &#8220;<a href="http://www.agconsult.be/en/usability/onedayusertest.asp">Read more</a>&#8220;, that&#8217;s not very helpful. Links like &#8220;<a href="http://www.agconsult.be/en/seminars/usabilityworkshop.asp">Usability workshop</a>&#8221; or &#8220;<a href="http://www.agconsult.be/en/usability/onedayusertest.asp">One-day user test</a>&#8221; are far more useful. Surfers know what to expect when they click these links.  </li>
<li><strong>Google likes meaningful links</strong><br />
When indexing pages Google not only takes into account the words on the page itself but also the words in the links to that page. A link to a &#8220;<a href="http://www.agconsult.be/en/seminars/usabilityworkshop.asp">Usability workshop</a>&#8221; helps that page score better for the words &#8220;usability&#8221; and &#8220;workshop&#8221;.</li>
<li><strong>Visually impaired users</strong><br />
Visually impaired users also scan web pages. Not with their eyes but by jumping from link to link with special software. The links appear on the braille reader or are read out. No prizes for guessing which sort of links they prefer.</li>
</ul>
<h3>2. Tips</h3>
<ul type="disc">
<li>Avoid links that only say &#8220;Click here&#8221;, &#8220;Read more&#8221; or similar things.</li>
<li>Make sure a link says something about the page it refers to.</li>
<li>Titles of articles on home- and overview pages should be clickable. That way, you don&#8217;t even need a &#8220;Read more&#8221; link at the end.  </li>
<li>Put the most important words first, to play into surfers&#8217; scanning behaviour.</li>
</ul>
<h1>3. Examples</h1>
<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-103" title="Meaningless link" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/meaningfullinksbad2.gif" alt="Meaningless link" width="405" height="66" /></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Better: &#8220;Find an Invisalign doctor near you.&#8221;</p>
<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-104" title="Meaningless link" src="http://webusability-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/meaninglesslink.gif" alt="Meaningless link" width="215" height="172" /></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Better: Leave out the &#8220;More&#8221; link and simply make the title clickable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://webusability-blog.com/meaningful-links-are-a-must/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
