W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Is it acceptable to provide two versions of a site to work around an accessibility problem?

From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:31:16 +0200
Message-ID: <000701c2e241$92af2a60$5630f7c2@laptop>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

From: "Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net>
Subject: Is it acceptable to provide two versions of a site to work around
an accessibility problem?


> The problem we have is that the client wants the content to be centred
> on the page with some fixed width columns - if you try to increase the
> font size in the browser some of the content ends up overlapping from
> one column to the one beside it.   It only happens with the menu column
> down the left hand side when there are long words in the menu.


Does the client know about the cost of fixing the width of the menus? Have
you established why the client requires the columns to be a fixed width?
Note that a client's perception of a fixed width is based on the current
font-size. From a CSS perspective, a "fixed width" in ems is an option,
since it follows the same perception.


> I can get around this by providing a 'text only' style link on the page
> so that users with problems can get the linear version.

AIUI 'text only' should only be a last resort if other alternatives cannot
present an accessible website. The purpose of accessibility-minded
legislation is to re-introduce equality between disbled people and
non-disabled. There is a general feeling that "equality through separation"
is no equality at all. I would tend to agree with that.

> Ideally I should try to persuade the client to move to more flexible
> columns, but I have failed so far.

Well, you have tried. I'm curious though, what was the client's reaction
when he saw the overlap?
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 08:35:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT