-----Original Message-----
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Morgan-May
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:50 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Who's responsible (was Re: [WSG] add to favorites?)

On 3/25/09 12:12 PM, "Rick Faircloth" <r...@whitestonemedia.com> wrote:
>> The correct design (and web standards that are adhered to or not) is 
>> that design for which the client is paying.

> Sorry, but that just reads to me like a way to excuse slipshod work. It is
one thing to figure out any old way to collect the check, and quite another
to think out all the > angles and produce something that reaches the largest
possible audience. I think the latter is far more professional, and all of
the people I now work with, and all the > ones I think of as successful in
web design/dev, sweat those details.

You seem to assume that no one took the steps to create other options or
inform in these situations. I have. And I've been told "no go, do it my way
or the highway". Not everyone is reasonable about things like that. Some
people insist they know it all and persist with ridiculous demands that are
often non-standards compliant and downright ugly. Regardless of the
alternatives they've been handed. I've dealt with some moronic requests when
it comes to websites, from people that know nothing about it. I'm sure we
all have at some point.

> I've personally refused jobs before based on the knowledge that
accessibility was being left out. So I know it can be done. Whether others
would do the same is a question > of their own judgment, not their

It's good that you have the luxury to be able to make that call. The reality
is that not everyone is in a position, financially or otherwise. Yes, it can
be done. It is simply not always practical.

That said, I'm in a position where I typically do get to call the shots. I
want standards compliance. Every design is blood and sweat because I'm not
compromising. But to get where I am, I had to put up with a lot of hideous
nonsense along the way.

I'm not saying let's just toss standards out the window. I'm just saying
that the reality is that sometimes we're stuck with compromise, or worse, we
don't even get to compromise. Learning how to balance conflicting
requirements, or how to offer alternatives in some cases, strikes me as a
valuable tool to advance the cause of usability and accessibility. As with
any cause, sometimes advancement and education of the masses involves
babysteps and doing what we can.

Speaking of doing what we can: anyone taken a good look at whitehouse.gov?
While they've made some great strides in modernizing the site, its sorely
lacking in basic accessibility. For starters: fixed font sizes. I filled out
the comment form to give feedback on the subject. If more of us piped up, it
could benefit.


List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org

Reply via email to