> It's a persistent misconception that accessibility has anything to do > with the design. We all have to educate clients on this point and hope > the message gets out there. Ben... You must elaborate loads on that. If you're saying that a site, no matter how terribly designed, is still possible to navigate and extract information on as a yes no answer, then your comment stands. But I'm afraid you're suggesting something else.
I probably should have been a bit clearer. What I meant was that good design can be put online in an accessible manner; or to put it the other way around an accessible design can be as creative and gorgeous as you want it to be. There's a misconception that "accessible sites have to look like useit.com"*, which is silly. Useit.com is ugly because it's ugly, not because it's accessible. I strongly suspect the "usable = ugly" myth is perpetuated by design firms that don't feel like updating their skills; and don't want their clients to get a clue and go elsewhere. So they spread misinformation so everyone has an excuse to keep doing the same old thing. So you're right, accessibility (and usability) and design should be considered together. But accessibility does not place any serious restrictions on design, so long as you work with accessibility in mind. Accessibility only causes serious disruption when it wasn't considered all the way through, then someone is asked to retrofit accessibility features - usually with two days to go-live. cheers, Ben * I am nicking an anecdote from Cheryl Lead here! :) -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
