Posted by Jukka Aho on 09/26/06 01:44

Spex wrote:

>>>> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/>

> The political correctness of our time can do as much harm as good.

I snipped a couple of paragraphs, because it all seemed to crystallize
here. I really can't see what is so horrible about accessibility. You
can create fairly accessible web sites with minimal effort if you only
take accessibility in account from the get-go, instead of as an
afterthough. As a nice side-effect, the site will be more usable and
accessible for _all_ - not just for those who have disabilities.

> I think it is patronising to produce content for the handicapped.

Interesting thought, but it doesn't really matter in this context, since
the idea of accessibility is not "producing (separate) content for the
handicapped", but to make generic web sites that are structurally sound
and scale well in different browsing environments. That will benefit all
users, not just the handicapped.

> We should be pushing the main operating system manufacturers to better
> develop accessibility tools and input devices that best help the
> user's disability.

I think there are many acessibility-enhancing techniques for the web
that, realistically-speaking, just cannot be "emulated" on the OS level.

> consider all of the many varied modes of reception and you'll soon
> realise that in practice it is most improbable time and money would
> spent to ensure mobile phone viewers have a similar experience to a
> group watching on a projected display.

What's this "similar experience" thing you're talking about? What
matters is that the users can access the content effortlessly, on
various devices, without overly restricting user interface gimmicks
getting in the way - not "similar experience". Whether they like
watching low-quality content on big screen, for example, is their call -
not yours.

> What ticks me off is the insinuation that as a web developer one is
> somehow a poor developer or at least not a good one if one doesn't
> cover all bases no matter how diverse and marginal they might be.

You're arguing against an idea that was never presented in this
discussion. What ticks me off is web developers whose design starts
first and foremost from the visuals, not the content and structure, and
where the whole site tries to work around the recommended ways of doing
stuff in with whatever technologies you have, in a nice and structured
way, instead of embracing it. Things like "headlines" that aren't marked
up as headlines, "paragraphs" that aren't marked up as paragraphs,
contrived attempts at doing pixel-perfect layout (which will never work
properly, and shouldn't), embedded media players that don't allow
resizing or full-screen mode, JavaScript-based fake "links" that could
just as well have been ordinary links. That sort of thing. All easily
avoidable.

--
znark

[Back to original message]