- It looked very outdated, because it was basically a lightly modified version of the website we created in the early 2000s.
a. It was all static HTML pages for the most part.
2. The design wasn’t responsive, making it a headache for patrons on mobile or tablet devices, and for staff members trying to help users on mobile or tablet devices.
3. Certain parts of the website were not accessibility compliant.
I read a number of books this summer in an attempt to try to complete my Goodreads challenge for this year (40 books). Here are the ones that left an impression I wanted to share with you:
Author: Emily X.R. Pan
Publication Date: March 2018
Over the weekend, I was on my phone, and in my news feed an article popped up because it was about libraries. It was this Forbes piece (links to the article through the WayBack Machine) by Panos Mourdoukoutas, who is a professor and chair of the Economics department at Long Island University, who also lectures at Columbia University occasionally (at least according to his bio on Forbes).
The piece is entitled “Amazon Should Replace Local Libraries to Save Taxpayers Money.” After I started writing this post, the piece was pulled from Forbes, but these ideas still exist out there, so I’m going to continue with this post.
The article argued that “Amazon should open their own bookstores in all local communities. They can replace local libraries and save taxpayers lots of money, while enhancing the value of their stock.”
Mourdoukoutas said that libraries aren’t free, because we pay taxes for them, and that their value as a place to host community events no longer exists. He believes Netflix and other streaming services have replaced the need for video rental services, like borrowing DVDs from the library. He also argued that Starbucks and other “third places” take over the role libraries have as a community space, where people can go online, meet up with friends, and enjoy a drink.
This isn’t everything he said, but I want to provide a counterpoint to a lot of what he wrote above, as many of these ideas have been floating around for a while.
This is a continuation of my Hall of Shame series, where I point out website “crimes” that many libraries are guilty of committing. If you missed my first post in this series, you can see it here: Hall of Shame series.
This time, I’m coming for those libraries (and other institutions) who don’t test their website to see if it works for people who are color blind.
Color blindness affects approximately 8% of all men, and 0.05% of women (National Eye Institute). This means out of the approximately 300 million people in the United States (doing the math myself) they may be as many as 12 million men and about 7.5 million women in the United States with some form of color blindness, which is a total around 19.5 million.
So, with all of these people who are color blind, what can we do to improve their experience on websites?