W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:47:34 -0500 (EST)
To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.1202191646070.23962@cygnus.smart.net>

I know I am affected negatively. like the old detective show.
"just give me the facts"
I have openned sites like that took one look and went to another site.

Bob


On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, David Woolley wrote:

> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:05:36 +0000
> From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version
> Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:06:12 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> accessys@smart.net wrote:
>> 
>> all that @@&*$^%@ eye candy...
>> 
>
> The designers will try to justify their fees by claiming that that eye candy 
> is what subtly influences visitors to the site to do what they owners of the 
> site want them to do.  That's why it is so difficult to get people to design 
> universal sites.
>
> (I think that they also miss the fact that a significant number of consumers 
> see through the eye candy, and would actually be more positively influenced 
> by a site with real facts and negatives as well as positives, but that is 
> against the marketing culture.)
>
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 21:48:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 19 February 2012 21:48:21 GMT