Good point, Andy.
However, I think there actually *is* a benchmark we can use as a guide to
work from in terms of the user's technical ability. I'd start by looking at
'default behaviour'. The ability to operate a machine/software using ONLY
its default settings.
For the web, this would be a level above "What is a Link" and below "'How do
I increase/decrease text size".
Assuming users know what's on the context menu is above the scope of this
(that's why so many sites put instructions like "right-click and select
'save target as' " in their pages). Assuming the User knows how to clear
their cache or set their Home Page is also above this level, as this
requires the user to go into the 'options' available for the software. The
second they start to get 'under the hood' of the software is when they start
to become more advanced.
You're example of screen readers' users setting the Title attribute is not
so much a fault in page design or standards but rather (at best) a
mis-calculation by the software developers on the importance of one of their
features or (at worst) a dramatic over-site in terms of standards support by
the software developers.
Hope I'm making sense, here and I know it's a slippery slope, but hey ...
That's why they pay us the big bucks, right?
.. Right?
Anyone?
R :oP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Kirkwood | Motive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Text choices on our own sites
Hi Richard,
To play the devil's advocate...
Certainly humanist developers aim to remove the barriers that technology
might place between users and content. However, difficulty arises when
determining what constitutes 'technical' literacy. This could range from
'What's a link' through to 'How do I increase/decrease text size'. Even
many of the 'hooks' put into content markup to make it more accessible are
not used by a screen reader unless the user customises the behaviour of
the software (reading title attributes for one).
The issue of determining prior (technical) knowledge is one of those
bug-bears like browser statistics. Even though we'd like to, it's
problematic to generalise. On the other hand, adding an introduction to
every webpage on how to use the web is equally untenable.
Incidentally, does anyone know of a formal public-school curriculum that
covers using the web? Such a document/documents might provide an insight
as to how we (as in society-at-large) currently qualify 'technical
literacy'.
I think it's important to NOT expect users to know how to do this or even
be vaguely technically literate.
Doctors, for example, shouldn't have to be IT experts. They fix people not
machines. It's simply not their job or responsibility to be forced to
learn the HUGE amount of stuff that as developers we've crammed into our
head. This doesn't mean they should be penaliseed and not allowed to see
web sites or interact as freely on the web as the rest of us.
--
Andy Kirkwood | Creative Director
Motive | web.design.integrity
http://www.motive.co.nz
ph: (04) 3 800 800 fx: (04) 970 9693
mob: 021 369 693
93 Rintoul St, Newtown
PO Box 7150, Wellington South, New Zealand
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
