(was Mystical belief etc)
By the photo, Foster seems to be around 70 years old... and I bet he has
problems reading he's own site's tiny little letters.
Cheers,
Angela
On 4/20/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an
architectural
Hi all
This is starting to push off topic. Please keep it on the topic of
accessibility (maybe start a new thread that is more descriptive) or
take it elsewhere... and remember our list guidelines about abuse.
Thanks
James
--
admin
**
The
This is tending to drift off-topic, but it is a valid part of standards
because we're discussing accessibility issues in relation to design and the
role of 'image' in design. (So now I feel better :-).
The attitude that says 'visually impaired people don't matter because it
isn't for them' may
So, the point is, to say that 'Flash is awful because it's not accessible'
and all that stuff is to completely miss the point - it isn't for folk with
disabilities - the html option is.
Surely?
I'd say Flash is mostly a problem because it frequently breaks all
usability and accessibility
This reply shifts focus a bit, but with the word aesthetics being
considered relevant to the discussion, if not the only norm for design
of websites, I'd like to speak up for the semiotic dimension. Images
also speak like words, but more shimmeringly. I don't refer to an
animation or Flash
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:46:13 +1000, heretic wrote:
Maybe architecture is different in america, but here in australia
architects write the construction specification which has very little
to do with how anything looks. Yes, aesthetics are a really
significant part of the job; however so is
Hi Kornel,
4 seconds and I go back to Mars.
I saw the IMAGE, all hundreds kilobytes of it,
but I don't know who they are and what they're selling.
Well you would, if you looked at the site . . .
Small and blurry text. I just skip over blocks of text because I can't
read them.
Clicking
IMO this site creates a bad image for their owners rather than a
positive one, but personal opinions aside... I wonder if those who seem
to like this type of site can answer a few questions to help us put this
in perspective: What is the purpose for the existence of this site? What
do the
designer wrote:
4 seconds and I go back to Mars.
I saw the IMAGE, all hundreds kilobytes of it,
but I don't know who they are and what they're selling.
Well you would, if you looked at the site . . .
And what if I'm blind or visually impaired? Or are you going to argue
that in that case, you
Well you would, if you looked at the site . . .
And what if I'm blind or visually impaired? Or are you going to argue
that in that case, you won't appreciate the content of the site either,
so b*gger off?
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an
architectural or
On 4/20/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an
architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to
give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in
a situation like this
Collin Davis wrote:
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an
architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to
give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in
a situation like this site... who cares about them? - it's
At 01:40 PM 4/20/2005, Collin Davis wrote:
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about an
architectural or otherwise design showcase site - what designer is going to
give half a though to blind or visually impaired users? Quite honestly, in
a situation like this site... who
-Original Message-
From: pixeldiva [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:07 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
On 4/20/05, Collin Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue that in a heartbeat - when you're talking about
me.
Ted
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Paul Novitski
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 2:38 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] IMAGE(was Mystical belief etc)
At 01:40 PM 4/20/2005, Collin Davis wrote:
I would argue
Perhaps the point here should be:
If you have a Flash Site and an HTML Site, then why not make the HTML Site
accessible?
It takes exactly the same amount of effort and it's not as though your
design is extrameley difficult to be realised in standards compliant
XHTML/CSS.
Why not take a couple of
Collin Davis wrote:
I think you misunderstand my point - I'm talking about a very small niche
here - design sites where the only purpose is to showcase design - not to be
accessible, not to have content, not for any other purpose than showcasing
design.
I don't think anyone missed your point. It's
Vincent Flanders only includes business and/or public service sites as
web sites that suck - he has stated in the past that he considers
personal sites, entertainment sites etc to fall under different
rules.
Plus he's a lot more with it than Jakob, and more of a standards
evangelist which Mr
18 matches
Mail list logo
