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

RE: Ouch!!! (was: RE: Nielsen's Latest Alertbox & a personal prot est)

From: <carl.myhill@ps.ge.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 09:24:45 -0500
Message-ID: <6192367D59F8904CA553579EF41FEEA001C900C3@ukcbgx01psge.geips.ge.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Sorry, been away for a bit - actually, not that sorry it was a great escape.

On what you say below, I am not advocating following rules I don't
understand. In fact, in my own websites I could just shove in an empty
string into the default text part of my search form and claim WAI level 3
compliance as Mark Pilgrim does but why bother? I don't see the point in
default text in a search box from a usability perspective and I see even
less point in putting an empty string in there just so you score higher with
a compliance robot.

What I really meant was that although I have 11 years of experience as an
interaction designer I have never designed anything for people with any
kinds of disabilities specifically so I am inclined to follow these rules
more than others because I find it hard to walk a mile in the shoes of a
blind user - I don't know how screen reading devices really work. So,
following learned guidelines, where they are easily accomodated into my
designs, does not seem to be a big deal. 

Bobby also makes a pretty good job of explaining a lot of the why behind the
things suggested.


-----Original Message-----
From: John Foliot - WATS.ca [mailto:foliot@wats.ca] 
Sent: 11 November 2003 18:21
To: Myhill, Carl S (PS, GENS); w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Jesper Tverskov
Subject: Ouch!!! (was: RE: Nielsen's Latest Alertbox & a personal protest)


If any checking tool recommends that you do something, find out why... there
are loads of people on this list who would be only too happy to expand on a
topic, or offer reasoning as to why a certain "recommendation" be

Received on Monday, 17 November 2003 09:27:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:26 UTC