thewinchester
Established Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Posts
- 1,771
Warning: Sticking on my expert hat. This could get messy,
Additionally, there are some serious 4.5:1 contrast issues going on here (specifically 271 issues on the homepage alone), which is an aggregious breach of the accessibility standards as defined in WCAG 2.0.
In simple terms, failing to abide by the 4.5:1 rule makes disginguishing between different areas difficult for those with vision issues.
I've just thrown about ten different cases against it, and the type ahead works quite fine. The system also works beautifuly for keyboard users (yes, those snobs who refrain from the mouse and know why and what the tab key is used for), and also recognises IATA codes when keyed into either box.
Sadly, doesn't recognise IACO codes but those are only for the real geeks and generally not used within a GDS.
Having said that however, there are some functional flaws with the booking box. Firstly, if you have already set the origin and desintation, then go and change the origin because you selected the wrong place, it will clear the destination box forcing you to select the destination again.
And on the issue of tabbing, the JS they are using hides the keystroke focus once you have left the destination box, making it impossible to tell visually what field you have activated. It also seems to lose the cursor position frequently - combined making it an cough to use for those who asbstain from the mouse due to a wrist that sounds like a cement mixer.
So all in all, I'd contend this is a bloody good overhaul specially when compared to what it superseeded. Like any new website there's some flaws and kinks that need to be ironed out, but it's a vast improvment that should rightly be celebrated.
Here's hoping that QF take some lessons away from this site, specially removing their terrible tunnel navigation problems that make using their top menu a real PITA.
Are you on crack? The two sites are nothing alike at any level, be they design, user expeirence or user interface.
I'm going to disagree with you on a number of points Mal. But first to what I agree with you on.
I couldn't agree with you more on this. There is a big problem with the colour scheme they have selected here, as it doesn't provide enough to distinguish between the different sections of the navigation.
Additionally, there are some serious 4.5:1 contrast issues going on here (specifically 271 issues on the homepage alone), which is an aggregious breach of the accessibility standards as defined in WCAG 2.0.
In simple terms, failing to abide by the 4.5:1 rule makes disginguishing between different areas difficult for those with vision issues.
Poppycock. I'm running a screen res with a vertical resolution of 768px, and I can see the information I need above the fold just fine. There are also links provided in the main body and on the right which allow you to jump to the relevant section of content within a page.
Balderdash (one moment while I adjust my monocle).
I've just thrown about ten different cases against it, and the type ahead works quite fine. The system also works beautifuly for keyboard users (yes, those snobs who refrain from the mouse and know why and what the tab key is used for), and also recognises IATA codes when keyed into either box.
Sadly, doesn't recognise IACO codes but those are only for the real geeks and generally not used within a GDS.
Having said that however, there are some functional flaws with the booking box. Firstly, if you have already set the origin and desintation, then go and change the origin because you selected the wrong place, it will clear the destination box forcing you to select the destination again.
And on the issue of tabbing, the JS they are using hides the keystroke focus once you have left the destination box, making it impossible to tell visually what field you have activated. It also seems to lose the cursor position frequently - combined making it an cough to use for those who asbstain from the mouse due to a wrist that sounds like a cement mixer.
So all in all, I'd contend this is a bloody good overhaul specially when compared to what it superseeded. Like any new website there's some flaws and kinks that need to be ironed out, but it's a vast improvment that should rightly be celebrated.
Here's hoping that QF take some lessons away from this site, specially removing their terrible tunnel navigation problems that make using their top menu a real PITA.
it seems mostly OK to me, but it's a bit cluttered. Is all of that information on the front page needed/useful to have there? Also, I'm no UX expert by any stretch of the imagination, but the contrast issues that have been pointed out could definitely be improved upon.
