I chose to analyze some social networking sites to see how they compare to the W3C requirements for validity and how they follow rules for accessibility and consistency in design and layout. User accounts are required to view most of what I found for analytical data, so it can be difficult to understand what is meant in this commentary.
http://www.facebook.com
Facebook is one of the most popular social networking sites on the Internet. It has a very accessible design and layout, and is quite aesthetically pleasing. Although it is customizeable by each user, the layout of the site and theme are consistent. The site uses external CSS sheets to organize the content. Navigation is consistent and solid throughout the site. Facebook has proven to be easy to use. Many people have found its ease of access appealing, and even the least of computer-savvy people have been able to use it effectively. Its popularity can be seen in its ease of use. Many social networking sites existed before Facebook.com, but it seems those have found a back burner since the launch of this particular site.
I like the consistent nature of the site's layout. It follows the same design for every page. It can be customized to every user, but the design and layout is consistent and flowing. The applications and input on the page used to be cumbersome if an individual had many postings on his/her page, but that has since been consolidated to only show the latest posts, resulting in less scrolling and better accessibility. From design, functionality, and accessible standpoints, this site has little I dislike. Even the advertising is consistent to the design and conveniently on the side of the page where it doesn't impose on the users and page layout. As previously stated, the site is very accessible.
Facebook.com does not validate with W3C Markup Validator.
http://www.myspace.com
MySpace is among the popular social networking sites and offers a different approach to design and layout. The site uses embedded CSS styling which provides the users with the ability to change their sites' layout and design using HTML/CSS code inputted into the content forms available to the users. Navigation of MySpace is semi-consistent, but can be changed by each individual user, so it has the tendency to not follow conformity. The original idea for the site was for sharing personal music and for bands who wanted to get their work out into the public. It has since become a popular site for social networking and the inconsistency of the pages has much to do with each individual's ability to upload themes and layouts available on the Web, or their ability to change the code themselves. It's not as easy to change the layout as I have seen on other sites, but it does provide a layout that can be predictable for beginning users, which in turn helps the usability rating of the site increase. The design of the tab-browsing in the site is nice, but I don't like the site much for design, layout, or ease of use. It seems to have a lot of excessive content and navigation that could be simplified. Advertising on the site is EXTREMELY imposing and pushes the main content down the page, which doesn't help accessibility or ease of use.
MySpace.com does not validate with W3C Markup Validator.
http://www.imvu.com
IMVU is a social networking site with a virtual world and an avatar for each user. It provides a profile page for each person. The site uses tables and CSS for content and design. It provides for user design on each avatar profile page, which is inconsistent as each user can change the layout and design of the page, but the dashboard for each user is consistent. The navigation structure is simple and not excessive. It provides a tab-based navigation, consistent layout for the user with topical links and sub-topical links. The site is easy to use and much easier to edit than other editable sites, like MySpace. It provides the users with on-page, dropdown menus for changing layout and then advanced options for more advanced users. I like the consistency of the dashboard and its layout and design. I like the ability to be able to edit HTML/CSS advanced properties on the page. I dislike the advertising of the site, but with a little CSS know-how, that can be set as 'display: none;'. The site is semi-accessible on the dashboard side, but the use of tables has limited that rating.
IMVU.com does not validate with W3C Markup Validator.
So is validating over rated? What I should do (and probably wont) is go to some of these major sites such and see what it is in that doesn't allow the page to validate. I wonder if some of the dynamic content that is written by server side doesn't follow W3C standards.
ReplyDeleteYou made an interesting comparison between ease of use and popularity of the sites. This has been a pretty consistent concept from all of us in doing this assignment. That and the fact that nothing on the planet validates. Jayte: if you want, I'll help you (not) check into that idea of yours.
ReplyDeleteI don't use and social networking sites so I really don't know too much about them but I did used to use myspace and it was fairly difficult to change the layout or get it just the way that you want it to be. IMVU sounds interesting though, I haven't ever heard of it.
ReplyDeleteJayte, I do believe a lot of the non validating pages I've come across are server side pages that are being sent down. I don't see how they could account for all aspects that are necessary to consider when dynamic pages are in play. It just has too many variables to consider. You can start with a good template that validates though, and will help with your accessibility.
ReplyDelete