W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Undoubtedly, an oversimplification ...

From: Senthil Nagappan <arnsk3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:08:34 -0400
Message-Id: <7C894F49-34DE-4322-9477-0924A8B1CB1D@gmail.com>
Cc: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
Today with this technology having multiple website is unnecessary and waste of money. The same content should be scaled for different devices size. Responsive design solves this but some minor problems appears when using media queries. So the same experience is not carried over to everyone.

Senthil Nagappan
Ph: +1 571 403 0835

> On May 2, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I would also add, and I know that I am opening myself up to the charge of representing the "tyranny of the majority," that an interactive web is something that users want, especially given that the appropriate use of JavaScript can make websites more usable to people both with, and without, disabilities. The key is to ensure that persons with disabilities are able to take advantage of, and benefit from, the use of JavaScript. The most recent WebAim survey bears this out--where 97.6% of respondents had JS turned on, and those who did not were a combination of those using Lynx and Firefox NoScript. I know of no other industry (speaking of AT providers and the W3C) that has been so responsive to meeting the needs of its users. The debate, it seems to me, should not be how to accommodate the 1%, but to empower them with more effective technology, and to persuade the greater Internet community to design websites that are accessible for the 99% that have JS enabled.
> Mike
>>> On May 2, 2014, at 5:38 PM, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2014 22:22, L Robinson wrote:
>>> today, if i had the
>>> choice of using two versions of a web site, one with, and one without
>>> JavaScript, i would opt for the one without. This would not have been
>>> the case a decade ago.
>> However, nobody today is going to build two separate versions. And the whole idea of "here's a separate site for 'the disabled'" has long been abandoned in favour of inclusive single-site solutions.
>> Yes, approaches needed to make modern web applications (sites that are not merely static content/documents, but actual systems) accessible are increasingly complex, but that's because these sites themselves are increasingly complex.
>> P
>> -- 
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2014 03:09:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:51 UTC