W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: URL attached this time. Still seeking evaluation.

From: Joe Night <joe.night@gateway2000.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:57:41 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 10:54 AM 1/20/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Nice site. Liked your photos.
Thanks. I loved taking them.

>I disagree with Rob re the green on black. True, some may
>find it difficult to read, but because you used stylesheets,
>that's easy to override. If you'd used font tags, I might
>have agreed with Rob. As it is, it looks very nice with
>green on black, and if viewers have difficulty with that,
>they can simply override it. Of course, some may not know
>how to do that, so there's always a trade-off involved. I
>guess it depends on how much you like the green on black.

Rob's point does need some consideration. You've actually hit the nail on
the head. I do have to deal with the "new user" or "confused user" issue.
The style sheets help -- but for those who can't or won't turn them off, I
could compromise by selecting a brighter color or maybe by working with a
typeface that isn't so thin. The green on black doesn't do very good with
the "squint" test.

>The whole point of stylesheets, at least as far as
>accessibility is concerned, is to free the designer up to do
>things like using black backgrounds. That's my opinion,

>I'm more curious about your "text-only" option. It seems to
>me that it would be better labeled "no-frames."

Yup. You got me. I'm still struggling with that issue too. If you turn off
the images or take a tour with pwWebSpeak it tends to come out as a
text-only site. I dropped out of the frames in order to give primitive
screen reader software an even chance. I think I need to completely
reconsider the "noframes / text-only" method. The other Charles also had a
good comment about just getting down to business from the main frameset
page. I'm getting a lot of good ideas here.

>Also, you might want to rename your frames to give them more
>descriptive names. I noticed you have titles, but on Lynx,
>for example, all one sees is "top" and "bottom." If you
>named them "navbar" and "main" or something similar, it
>would be immediately apparent what's in what.

I can do that.

>Hope this helps.
>Charles Munat
>Puerto Vallarta

Yes, Thank you, to all of you. It all helps a lot. I did a little tinkering
this morning and was pretty much able to pass the "Bobby" test.
Still, there's really no substitute for human feedback. People are a lot
more observant. I've spent quite a bit of time looking at the "top" and
"bottom" links under Lynx and it never dawned on me that it wasn't making
perfectly good sense.

Joe Night
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 1999 12:57:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:03 UTC