W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Copywriting for Screenreaders (was Alt text for URL's)

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:30:35 -0500
Message-ID: <014001c5150e$0317bd20$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "ADAM GUASCH" <ADAM.GUASCH@EEOC.GOV>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Te approach we need to take here is one that has accessibility at the 
center.  While a person can look at the screen and know at a glance what is 
on the page or tinks they know, that person can easily also know tat a mouse 
click would reavel the site structure if desired so te accessibility trade 
off in this instance is minimal.  I am only saying that sites need to be 
layed out according to user needs, not preferences of those who are causing 
the sites to be developped.  I doubt there is a real and clearly 
demonstrable need for a user to have all that clutter on a page.  I'm not 
objecting to anything on a page though as long as the page has good 
structure and that we don't get too carried away trying to figure out how to 
copyright something that is ever changing and does not take the widest 
possible audience into account.

I have learned a lot in this thread and see the issues faced.  We have to 
start somewhere and if we are going to copyrigt anything, let's start with 
an assumption that technology is disabled and not people and that we need to 
fix the technology instead of fostering its broken ness.

Johnnie Apple Seed
----- Original Message ----- 
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: Copywriting for Screenreaders (was Alt text for URL's)

>>>> "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
2/17/2005 10:53:35 AM >>>

>In the liniar approach, we would easily split the page into areas and

>provide the ability for all to see who wanted to see them the ability
>directly access the area of interest.

In this approach, what would be the first page element the user
encounters (ignoring the logo for now)? Would it be the global site
navigation? The service area navigation? The content? Or, as I think
you're suggesting, the table of contents you mentioned earlier in the
discussion, linking to the three main elements?

> We could even have one page for nav
>and a link to that page on each other page.

A reasonable solution for a non-sighted user. Unfortunately, not at all
realistic for a sighted user. There are many advantages, for both the
user and the owner of the site, to being able to quickly obtain an
overview of the site as a whole, and of the section of the site
currently being accessed, at a glance. Far too many advantages to make
it reasonable to remove that information to a separate page, requiring
the user to follow a separate link to obtain it. (This is, of course,
not universally true - some sites, or sections of sites, might benefit
from this approach, or at least not be harmed by it. But very few, in my
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 16:31:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:31 UTC