@Chris F. A. Johnson Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's content is perfectly visible with whatever default font size.
@Thierry Koblentz 'Could' is not something we should be developing for. We need to know who we are developing for, otherwise it's a bit of a hit and miss. @Patrick H. Lauke 'Full accessibility' to me means a fully functional site with JS switched off, with all visual goodies in place of course (contrast, flexible font size and so on) according to WCAG1.0, to which we have so far been working. When web apps context comes in, meeting these WCAG1.0 becomes a massive burden and extra work. Clients issue - I am usually not developing for Santa Clause. Clients essentially rule the game and set the constraints which I need to meet. I am not going to invent constraints or drop anything that client requires. If they tell me 'code for IE6 only' I will tell them 'but IE8 is already in use and IE9 is round the corner, so IE6 is way beyond it's use by date, so I would not recommend what you suggest under any circumstances' and they tell me that I should not worry, I am not going to be an idiot enough to be pushing my issue as it tends to simply piss people off and make me look bad in the eyes of everyone. JS issue. When writing this article for most part I *was* thinking about JS vs. no-JS matters. To implement a proper progressively enhanced solution for a complex web app it really does take lots of thinking and additional (possibly complex) JS/AJAX code for it to work. I haven't got that time to do it with the app I am currently developing. Coincidentally can someone send me a complex-ish web app using JS that has been 'properly developed' with regards to accessibility? Anything in the wild will do. Yahoo used to taut Flickr as one, but it isn't. On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Chris F.A. Johnson <ch...@cfajohnson.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: > >> Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. > ... >> @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the >> browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice >> to have test environment details). > > The only environment detail that matters is the font size. You > haven't allowed for users with a different default font size -- and > that *is* a matter of accessibility. > >> I don't care. Content is visible >> and accessible. I am not intending to support everything under the Sun >> under my blog. > > Why not? It's more work to prevent it working everywhere than it is > to *let* it work everywhere. > > -- > 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 > ******************************************************************* > > -- 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 *******************************************************************
