This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Web Buzz
by Christian Machmeier.
Original Post: Re: Accessibilty vs Branding
Feed Title: .redSPLASH - Blog
Feed URL: http://businesslogs.com/WebLog/RSS.xml
Feed Description: Share what you know, learn what you don't
It seems to me that there are many good possible explanations for this behavior. Perhaps this company does Flash development and deems it more cost effective to further develop their Flash site than to spend the time to mirror that in HTML. Perhaps another companys site layout and CSS downgrades horribly in version 4 browsers; it may be SO bad that they feel they will present an unprofessional image by delivering such chaos to users.
So: It all comes down to money, again. But in fact, you made a point so I'll leave that. But maybe one could also reduce your saying to the term target audience.
The target audience can be described, specified and so on. And truly, I can understand, when someone (in decision-making position) argues, that the most important thing'd to be taken care of is the branded image the company has within the target audience.
And then comes Joe User. Well, Joe User is definitely not part of the target audience, but he somehow reached the Brand X website and he is told to leave and come back again, when he is using no *crippled* browsing device. What kind of satisfacting user experience should that be?
My point is: if you are limiting the user experience or the provided content (in whatsoever way), you should, yes you have to provide alternative content, where you at least explain that the user isn't presented the real content of the site and of course why this is a matter of fact.
Previous Topic
