I agree with you somewhat, Pauric, that "the world is heading in a more immersive online experience using -good- design practices." But full immersion is not desirable for all. Some of us have a real life beyond the virtual world. And it seems to me there are a lot of people actively working in a manner that pulls us away from accessible design, which has many benefits for all of us. For the most part, I think it's because they don't understand it. And users of accessible technology (like most other users) don't understand how it works; they just hope it does.
I don't pretend to know everything on the subject myself, but let's take Gmail as an example. Here's what the "noscript" message delivers at Gmail: "JavaScript must be enabled in order for you to use Gmail in standard view. However, it seems JavaScript is either disabled or not supported by your browser. To use standard view, enable JavaScript by changing your browser options, then try again. To use Gmail's basic HTML view, which does not require JavaScript, click here. If you want to view Gmail on a mobile phone or similar device click here." That is a useful message, and much better than what many people do. If we go to the "simple HTML" alternative page, it is indeed simple. No DOCTYPE specified, table-based layout with plenty of presentational tags which could easily have been averted with CSS. I can get my mail and nothing more. This is a choice Google made, and it's their choice to make, and as a private enterprise they are entitled to all the above. And in so doing, they deny their service to people who might benefit, but those people can go elsewhere. I think it's fine if everyone follows Google Apps over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings, if that's what they really want to do. I won't. We'll never find the better way, the simpler and more elegant way, if we don't explore it. I'm advocating for the ideal that the upgrade from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is something better than, say, the upgrade from Windows 98 to Windows ME. And right now, it isn't looking much better to me. It's a lot of "cool stuff" that takes up a lot of bandwidth, and the developers creating it are all on T1 lines while something like 60 percent of the connected population of my state uses dialup. How do you think Gmail looks at 28.8? At 14.4? I can write a letter and deliver it on horseback quicker. Anyway, I just think these are things to consider. We can continue to design for the affluent 10 percent of the world who will have ideal connections, or we can expand our market and our universe to design for everyone. Disability statistics ... pretty dreary stuff, but suffice it to say that we're talking pretty small numbers. If people want to judge that "statistically insignificant," OK. Consider, if you will, that those numbers are a great deal smaller than they would be if the tasks were not so incredibly frustrating (and it's partly my job to make it less so, though I'm sure your marching orders are very different). If one of those "numbers" is my grandmother or my sister or my child, though, that's a pretty important number, isn't it? It's amazing to me how many people with disabilities persevere and use this technology as well as they do. But if you required two hours to get dressed in the morning, as do some of the people I've worked with, you'd learn to be patient too. Pandora Radio is a wonderful concept, and I love it! I know a blind guy who hosts a statewide radio show on West Virginia Public Radio, and he would love it too if he could use it. That javascript implementation stands in his way. To many of us, accessibility is an academic topic. To some of us, it's about real people. I guess my ultimate point is that it might be wise to evolve instead in the direction of simplicity, with the "a la carte" option of added functionalities as desired, and I don't see developers thinking that way quite enough to suit my own taste. The HTML/XHTML specs were developed with that possibility in mind. There's a biological design principle of "exogeny" that's been proved over millions of years; it describes the way plants preserve their core and add on external layers like tree bark. Why can't we think more like that? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=23821 ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
