Metaplanar Babel

I don’t usually write about all the web dev/design stuff that I read about, but I think I’m going to make an exception today. Go read this Open Letter to Disney Store UK by Molly Holzschlag (a member of the Web Standards Project). You might want to read Of Mice and Men by Andy Clarke (edited because I’m an idiot) too, while you’re at it.

The gist of the “scandal” is that Disney Store UK has apparently redesigned their web site. No big deal, right? Well the sticky point is that the old site was designed with accessibility and web standards, which made it relatively fast, readable in a variety of formats (including screen readers for the blind), and, based on the screenshots I’ve seen, nice to look at too. This new one, if you take a look at the code, is a hearkening back to the days of yore, when tables-based design and the dreaded spacer gif reigned supreme. Back in those days, web pages were great bogs of <table> tags and extraneous images, and one often wished for the aid of a translator when trying to update or alter content. In those days, there was little to no separation of content and presentation. There was little concept of semantics (where we use the html element that actually means what its content is intended to mean, i.e. using a <ul> for a menu that is a list of items, rather than random, meaningless <div>s - this helps with accessibility, so screen readers have a context for the information they’re trying to convey). This new Disney site is a monument to the failings of that age.

Andy’s case study of his accessible design lists some statistical improvements gained in his design. To continue the trend, here’s a comparison of the stats listed there and stats from the new design:

Call me crazy, but those kinds of increases don’t look good without some major added functionality that doesn’t seem to be there. Along with a lot of the folks who commented on the various threads, I have to wonder how something like this happened. It was probably a simple case of ignorance, laziness, and pushing the bottom line, but that’s no excuse. And that’s ignoring the fact that the telephone number in the image at the top (0870 759 1701) doesn’t match the number in the image’s alt tag (0870 759 1710), which, as was pointed out in the comments, is not only shoddy work but could be described as discriminatory against those who browse without images (as a screen reader for the blind would). I can’t even imagine how it would read from a screen reader, and God help anyone who wants to view it on a mobile or PDA browser. It’s just ugly, however you look at it.

Anyway, I found the whole thing kind of interesting, so I decided to write a little about it. I’m no expert, but many of the folks talking in those two threads know what they’re talking about. Should be interesting to see if the buzz causes any reaction in the days to come.