blog.

If you're like me then you get very excited about the World Cup for a very short amount of time, and it's a great way to feel patriotic and part of something bigger than your daily life. 

So in honour of the possibility of England staying in the World cup long enough to give us something to shout about, here's my 4 favourite websites to see live scores (especially when you're at work during the matches):

No.1 : Yahoo Sport

Colourful and bright, this is a good option if you want photos and articles to distract you once you've glanced at the scores.

No.2 : Soccerway.com

Whilst the live matches are clearly laid out and pleasant to look at, the rest of the information on the page is a bit oppressive.

No.3 : Flashscores.com

Minimal and clean, this layout gives it to you on a plate...if you don't mind ignoring all the advertisements.

No.4 : Google.com

Last but not least, Google have been kind enough to reward anyone searching with anything relavent to the 'World Cup' the latest scores for matches on at the moment.  With a clear and instantly readable layout, good old Google have sneakily given us everything we've ever wanted....again.

I've just come back from a very interesting lunchtime lecture entitled: WCAG 2.0 for usability specialists by Michael Cooper (from W3C WAI).  It is the second of two events I've attended this year advertised on the 'Bristol Usability Group' network, and it was extremely informative.  Having attended the RNIB WCAG 2.0 one day course last year, I was interested in polishing up some knowledge on building accessible websites, but also in posing a few questions from the perspective of the buzz term 'User Experience'. The talk was really well organised and informative so thank you to Stuart Church from CX Partners for adding it to the Bristol Usability forum.

In his talk, Michael Cooper went through some of the beginnings of accessibility, as well as confronting a few common perceptions as to notions of what is usable, and what is not. 

For example he illustrated that whilst an image online might seem visible and helpful to the average user, without the magic [alt=""] attribute not visible to the average browser user,  it suddenly becomes unhelpful and positively annoying for the screen-reading user, as the random image url is read out loud in an effort to inform the user of it's presence. Whilst information like this is available at the W3C WCAG 2.0 Guidelines site, even Michael Cooper admits that the guidelines are 'carefully crafted to be precise, rather than to be easily read'.  Slightly ironic bearing in mind that one of the 4 key principles of accessibility is for content to be 'Understandable!'

One area of particular interest for me was the notion of a 'A', 'AA' or 'AAA' site. As with everything now, whilst definable in a court of law, what is black and white on paper is often grey in the light of day. 

As I had an official W3C WAI representative right there in front of me, I asked Michael if it was really possible to have a 'AAA' site, as some of the strictest 'AAA' guidelines seem to contradict each other. His response was interesting, and seemed to sum up the best-practise attitudes that are helpfully gaining some momentum in the web world today.

He said (paraphrased):  Yes, there can be 'AAA' standard websites, 'as long as you chose appropriate content for the specific user group, and don't use a conflicting combination of content'. 

User groups and users are ultimately who we're working for, even though we love our clients.  Whilst a bit simplistic, if we can help a user to use a site, then we are doing our job, and Michael Cooper's position on aiming to broaden the possible types and numbers of those users is a cause worth fighting for...even if that means trawling daily through the 'book-length' documentation that accompanies the WCAG 2.0 guidelines!

We look forward to this years release of PDF and Flash specific additional guidelines.

You can view the Talk notes here.

This video presentation by BJ Fogg from Stanford University really caught my eye today.  Whilst it's simple to say not everything is simple, from a User Experience point of view, it's not always simple to say why that is, in a meaningful or quantitative way.

I found this psycological framework, 'loose' as Fogg insists it is, to be pretty interesting as a way to enter into the realms of why 'less is often more'.  

Link to Vimeo video ».