Milosz A. Lodowski - New Media Designer wrote:
Christian in your opinion - those sites are inaccessible... without
any argues I cannot agree so that's why I've asked...
I define 'accessible' as "be given access". In normal terms that means
that if one access-point is closed to particular visitors for whatever
reason, then alternatives should be provided.
I find a message like "Instale o Flash Player" to be a closed
access-point, and there's no alternative.
I also define 'accessible' as "be given (at least) a minimum amount of
information", so one can make some kind of informed choice.
Seems to be lacking also, as I wasn't even informed about which Flash
Player version to install on that particular page.
(According to Adobe I have Flash Player installed in all my browsers, so
it would be nice to know why I should install a new one.)
So, I think at least some of those designers should have designed a bit
more accessible. They do have the same tools as the rest of us.
I also think whoever designed and/or authored the "100 the best
E-motional Websites" site should have provided a slightly more
informative alternative text to those link-images, as seeing "The Best
100 of E-motionalDesign.com" repeated that many times isn't very
informative - IMO.
So, yes, I think the experience and accessibility-level can be lifted
quite a bit with some informative text. Seriously - a dozen or so
well-selected and well-placed words might make all the difference on
most of those sites - accessibility-wise. Shouldn't limit the artistic
freedom on any level, so I can't see why not.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
