[WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Hello friends, I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Thank you very much. Regards, Jason -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Not a bad read. I'm about halfway in between your view and accessibility all the time. I do agree that there is a lot of accessibility for the sake of accessibility, however, there are also lots of things that are so easy to do that they should always be done, even if your target market doesn't explicitly need that. Thanks for the interesting read. - Christian On 1/29/2010 9:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: Hello friends, I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Thank you very much. Regards, Jason -- Christian Snodgrass CEO - Azure Ronin http://www.arwebdesign.net http://www.htmlblox.com Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 29/01/2010 14:09, Jason Grant wrote: I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ I'm sorry to say that, in my opinion, your argumentation is confused, ill informed, and misguided. More detail in my comment. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly written that you've given critical readers little to work with. You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of broad, deep, and empathetic thinking. When accessibility matters ... * A company cares about their users You could have stopped right there. Glumly, Paul *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Also posted on your blog: When accessibility matters: There are clear circumstances within which accessibility is incredibly relevant and should be implemented by all means possible. A company cares about their users, wanting to ensure a wide as possible accessibility in order to avoid customer complaints, negative feedback and generally increase their changes of higher profits by ensuring everyone can buy goods from their web site without problems Enough said i think :-) -- Regards, Luc _ Using the best e-mail client: The Bat! version 4.2.6 with Windows XP (build 2600), version 5.1 Service Pack 3 and using the best browser: Opera. You are richer today if you have laughed, given or forgiven. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
After reading the article myself I agree Jason is wrong. Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if you don't have regard for accessibility. I haven't been posting to this list very much lately but I just had to say something about this. Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com On 30/01/2010, at 9:46 AM, Paul Novitski p...@juniperwebcraft.com wrote: At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se. Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself. http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly written that you've given critical readers little to work with. You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of broad, deep, and empathetic thinking. When accessibility matters ... * A company cares about their users You could have stopped right there. Glumly, Paul *** List Guidelines:http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe:http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help:memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
Nor, apparently, does a page which works: http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/flexewebs.jpg. -- Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress) Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!
On 30/01/2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Mount i...@petermount.com wrote: Even with closed systems like intranets you're playing with fire if you don't have regard for accessibility. Agreed. Web applications built ‘for' closed intranets are the reason so many corporates still have IE6 installed. There are perfectly good selfish reasons why companies ought to consider accessibility. It's about ensuring things just work. Ollie *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] I need a professional eye.
Hi everyone, I need a professional eye. I have been developing this site for two weeks (with help from this email group) and now that I think I have finished. All I want to know is there too much css? The site is www.purencool.com Any feed back would be great and you don't have to be nice. -- bJohn Cullen/b purencool.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] I need a professional eye.
At 1/29/2010 08:36 PM, PurencoolGmail wrote: The site is www.purencool.com All I want to know is there too much css? No. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com PS: Are you *sure* this is all you want to know? What does the question mean? Too much CSS for what? If you're concerned about the size of your stylesheets, the two supporting the home page are only 5 KB so I would say No. If you're worried about the number of CSS rules, perhaps because you're afraid it will be difficult to maintain or degrade browser response time, I would say flatly No. Or do you mean that you're worried that the site might be over-styled? I would say no, it looks simple and open (which I like). I'm not positive what over-styled might look like, perhaps with too much decorative detail, but your site doesn't have that problem. I do see some problems with the site most of which have nothing to do with CSS. (Yes, I know you didn't ask.) - Neither the image fader nor the calculator worked properly in my Win Firefox 3.6 or IE8. Shall we assume they're still under development? - The calculator breaks on text-only zoom enlargement. It would be simple enough to style its widths in ems so that it grows naturally with text zoom. - I dislike the fact that your nav menus don't have hover states or an indicator of which page we're currently on. - The footer menu text looks too high in the blue bar at normal zoom, and both menus quickly break cosmetically on text-only zoom. (It's easy to make menus with stretchable graphics.) - The demos aren't enough to sell your apps. I recommend that you take a few paragraphs to detail their functionality, scope, limitations, and flexibility. I don't want to have to download a script merely to find out whether I can use it; that feels pushy and invasive. - It's irritating that your demo pages lose the nav menus so the only way to get back to the rest of your site is by Backing up. Keep in mind that many people will land on a demo page right from a search engine or other link and you want to make it easy for them to browse your site from there. - I think you should let people view the demos immediately, either right there on your home page or on the Services page. Why do we need to go to a separate demo page at all? Far better to integrate the apps right into your own site as an implicit demonstration of their integratability. - Personally I think the delay on your fader is at least twice as long as it should be. Making people wait to watch a cosmetic effect is irritating. - Your home page headline Latest Product or Service is odd. First, the ambiguity of the headline is mysterious; after all, it's your site so you should know whether the content below is a product or a service which are two very different things. Second, you don't have a Products page listed in your nav menus, and the Product or Service featured on your home page is in fact a product, creating an unnecessary and off-putting confusion. Perhaps Services in the top nav menu should be P S. Any feed back would be great and you don't have to be nice. *Whew!* Good luck with your site. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] I need a professional eye.
PurencoolGmail wrote:
Hi everyone,
I need a professional eye.
I have been developing this site for two weeks
(with help from this email group) and now that
I think I have finished. All I want to know is there
too much css?
The site is www.purencool.com
Any feed back would be great and you don't have to
be nice.
No pro-here here about.
She's nice.
Mind the-stack [1]: watch the footer (Mac OS 10.4).
body
{ /* font: 93%/1.5em Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif !important;
line-height:1.5em;*/
font : 100%/1.4 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;}
h2, h3, h4, h5{/*font: 1.3em Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;*/}
#leftNav ul li a{/*font-size:.95em;*/}
#leftNav h6{ /*font: 1.2em Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif;*/}
#leftNav p{/*font: .8em Arial,Helvetica,Sans-Serif; line-height:1.3em;*/}
[1] Helvetica Neue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetica#Neue_Helvetica_.281983.29
Best,
~d
--
desktop
http://chelseacreekstudio.com/
mobile
http://chelseacreekstudio.mobi/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
