W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Politics: Strict Guidelines Considered Harmful

From: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:57:37 -0500
Message-ID: <01b301c06820$8d2db900$a3d6db3f@cais.net>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <jim@jimthatcher.com>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Forgive the cliché but - aren't we 'throwing out the baby with the bath
water'?  As long as a tag like <font> does not impede accessibility I see no
reason to go to war over it.  When I talk to others about these issues I
find it useful to relate things to the physical world, and it seems to me
that some of this is like insisting all the stairs be removed when ramps are
installed.  Sure, that would guarantee the same access for all, but it would
punish those who walk by making them take a longer route.

As for EGO of designers, in my somewhat limited experience, the finger is
being pointed at the wrong people.  The content providers are often from a
'paper' publishing background and with that mindset they want the slick
company brochures or whatever, to look a certain way.  Often, all the
explanation in the world won't budge them from even the most obvious things
like using non web-safe colors.  As long as a web page is pixel perfect on
the system they use, it is quite beyond them to grasp that others might see
it in a different way.  Just try to convince a client that has a T1 at work
and a cable modem at home that all those graphics are a bad idea!  The 80/20
rule is interesting, but the only presentation that counts is the one to guy
who is paying the bill.
I have many fully sighted friends who will routinely use the 'text only'
version of a site when one is available, because they are interested in
content, not 'flash'.  Just try and convince a publisher of that!
Marti
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2000 06:47:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT