From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-28 10:06:27
Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
> At Wednesday 2005-04-27 19:36, Rene Rivera wrote:
> [deleted...not because it's irrelevant, it's NOT, but because it would
> obscure what I find myself compelled to say]
You tend to have an interesting urge to say things ;-)
>> As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to
>> accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost
>> completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough
>> flexibility to make the majority of users happy.
> In this case "majority of the users happy" won't cut it.
> You're entirely ignoring many of the visually impaired and that's
> There's a _reason_ that browsers allow users to display things in
> differing manners. so pick one of the following
> 1) I don't give a damn about the visually impaired (very unlikely)
> 2) I do, but not enough to do anything "extra" because of them (probably
> unlikely also)
> 3) I didn't even _think_ about the visually impaired in regard to this
> (most likely)
Interesting how you _assumed_ that I did *not* pick a fourth option of:
4) I though about the visually impaired a great deal and took additional
steps to make sure that they have a variety of avenues for reading the
4.a) I made sure the page followed a good reading structure so that if a
blind person is using a reader device the page will read cohesively.
4.b) I made sure that tab order navigation was correct so that not only
the visually impaired, but the dexterity impaired can navigate without
4.c) I stayed away from using HTML structural elements, like tables, for
visual layout as that would intrude in the ability for the impaired to
change the way the page looks.
4.d) I tested the page as it would look and function in text only mode.
4.e) I tested the page as it would look and function if all the colors
and images are overridden with user settings.
4.f) I tested the page with some of the WAI accessibility test harnesses
4.g) I tested the page at various zoom levels to make sure it was still
So the question is did _you_ care enough about the impaired to check the
functionality of the page for the visually impaired before you posted
[cut, not because it's not interesting, but because it's not really
> Making the boost
> webpage inaccessible without jumping through hoops, doesn't qualify, IMO.
Did you investigate what hoops a visually impaired person would need to
use? Are you so sure that there are hoops? Are you sure that it's not
the same hoops they already use to browse the rest of the web, and hence
are no longer hoops?
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk