Jelly Form
The Jelly Form site is solidly built, sporting a simple navigation, a clean-cut two-column layout and some nifty JavaScript embellishments in the form of rounded-corners. In fact if you check through Our Criteria you’ll find “Jelly Form” manages to deliver a good number of the things we expect to find, including server-side error checking for forms, custom error pages and focus on links and form elements. So far, so good.
In case you weren’t sure
For clarification it’s worth remembering that before we add a site to our grading queue we make sure that it reaches our minimum criteria; think of it as measuring the site against a series of mechanical tests before starting our in-depth manual scrutiny. The point being that even if your site meets most of the mechanical criteria it doesn’t guarantee winning an award (we’ve rejected sites after manual team grading). In the case of “Jelly Form” though we found more than enough evidence to demonstrate it’s worthy award status; however we also found a lack of attention to detail.
The devil is in the details
One of the most important elements when judging a submission to Accessites is the look and feel of the site. Does it have the WOW factor? Has there been plenty of care and attention paid to the fine details? On a small-scale site like this there’s no excuse for skipping over the minor details (where are the skip links?). For such simple content there was a noticeable lack of visual sharpness (and we’re not just referring to the blunt knife used to cut that pixelated jelly sandwich in half). We tend to notice what was left out more than what’s included.
We’re raising the bar on small sites
If your site is small we expect it to dazzle us. After checking that you reach our minimum standards we suggest that you focus on the small details. Has it got great graphics? Nifty navigation? Cool colours? In it’s current state “Jelly Form” has great potential to dazzle but just needs a little more Tender Loving Care.
The Jelly Form site was designed by Shane Holland. After much discussion and scrutiny, the site has been deemed eligible for an Award Level of: “Notable Universal Design.” Congratulations, Shane!
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: October 17th, 2007 at 7:52 am →
Congratz Shane!
goetsu responds:
Posted: October 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm →
I am not sure that the test in there form
“Which fruit is normally green in color: orange or lime?”
is really accessible for blind color people but maybe it’s not in your criteria.
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: October 17th, 2007 at 3:52 pm →
@goetsu: I think a generalized question like that would be okay though I can think of better questions. One doesn’t need to see color to answer it, and I can’t believe that the color-blind grow up in the absence of color references. In other words I am guessing that even the color blind know what colors fruits are, even if they cannot see the color for themselves. If this guess is wrong then, yes, this would be a failing point. Right now I’ll think it could be improved and guess that it’s passable.
Jermayn Parker responds:
Posted: October 18th, 2007 at 8:19 pm →
Yes colour blind would know the colour of an orange and lime..
btw why did the Jelly form website (I like it generally and the idea) have to be in a sambo (sandwich)?? I would have thought maybe a pill of jelly on a plate slowly wiggling and wobbling could have been nice.
Karl Dawson responds:
Posted: October 19th, 2007 at 3:24 am →
Congratulations Shane!
I think there’s enough of a clue in the name “orange” to guess its colour…
@Jermayn: I think the sandwich analogy is because Americans (only?) refer to “Jam” as “Jelly”.
…and now I have a craving for jelly and ice cream. Thank you.
Shane Holland responds:
Posted: October 19th, 2007 at 9:29 am →
Thanks for all your comments!
@ Mike Cherim: I was reading through the comment sheet from Team Access and you mentioned me writing you and asking to site you as a source. You stated I didn’t. Check the user’s manual when you download the form, you’re in there (and have been)!
Take care and thanks again Team Access!!
Mike Cherim responds:
Posted: October 22nd, 2007 at 7:16 am →
Thanks Shane. I did not know. My apologies.