On 30/01/2010 16:57, Jason Grant wrote:
@Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD
working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I
can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in
my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed and maybe live a
bit of life in spare minutes. In first instance 'full accessibility'
is a must. In second, it might not be.
That depends on your definition and understanding of "full
accessibility". Are we talking WCAG 1, WCAG 2, ...?
@Peter Mount To some extent we are playing with fire developing
however we are developing. Sometimes (within Intranet systems
specially) we are specifically told by the client to develop for
IE6/IE7 and not care about other browsers as the client is trying to
save cash on testing (dev and UAT) and so on. Bottom line, there are
circumstances within which 'playing with fire' is what the client
wants.
That's a different argument to what you make in your blog post, which
does not mention clients at all - just the argument that in those
situations accessibility is irrelevant. There is a difference.
@Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to
use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS. In two year JQuery gets dropped
by browsers for whatever reason and browsers no longer support it. We
are once again 'playing with fire'. Do you know exactly what future
holds? How do we know that everything we are doing today will not have
to be re-written in 2-3 years time to be compatible. HTML4 --> HTML5
is a perfect example of a case where technology will imply some
changes need to be made in order for things to keep up with time. Just
a thought.
So, what are you getting at? Yes, let's make the intranet completely
inaccessible and just wait until an employee with disabilities gets
hired, then redo it all?
Looking at your comments on the blog, I note "we should be able to get
away with single A accessibility and a solid mobile solution instead".
Accessibility is not a matter of "getting away with" anything. It's
about providing the best solutions for the widest possible audiences.
You seem to have a dichotomy of UX vs Accessibility, for some reason.
And again you seem to be stuck on the "no JavaScript" mindset. Is THAT
really the crux of your argument? Are you hung up on WCAG 1? Is your
blog post simply boiling down to "I want to use JavaScript, but WCAG 1
won't let me, but for UX it's great, and I can't be bothered to do a
no-JS parallel solution"? If so, WCAG 2 of course allows JS, if it's
used correctly.
"So I can finally understand the principles behind WCAG2.0."
I get the impression that you still don't, I'm afraid. By saying that
accessibility does not matter in certain situations, you're implicitly
saying that WCAG 2 doesn't matter.
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: [email protected]
*******************************************************************
