Re: Slashdot: "Designers Ignoring Standards"

From: "Joseph McLean" <joseph@secondflux.com>
> ... many website designers act as a baffle or smoke screen between
> "standards compliance" and their bosses.  Since a website designer can
drop
> into jargon (a la BOFH) and confuse the issue with great-sounding
> technicalities, and since many working relationships with designers place
a
> good amount of trust in their Internet-related opinions, this is a
> dangerous predicament.

That puts the web-designer in a position of trust, and a position they can
add benefit, profit or abuse. So as long as it is in the web-designers
interest (financially) not to adopt a standards based approach, the bosses
will be none the wiser.

This suggests a two pronged approach:
1.) Promoting the concrete benefits of a standards-based accessible web
authoring to the designers, on what they can gain from it, what their
clients can gain from it, and _how_ to actually do it. So lots of practical
advice and guidelines, as well as clear arguments against the myths of
accessible authoring (double the cost of "normal" authoring).

2.) Promoting the business benefit of accessible web authoring on the
clients and bosses, but from a non-technical view point. If bosses and
clients are insisting on non-accessible design, they should do so with the
material facts and relevant information. This should include arguments
tackling the myth that the web is like paper.

If people don't understand what the web is, where it is going, and why its
good for everyone, its a little difficult to convince them why accessibility
is in their best interests. Websites are focused on today's customers -- the
ones willing to part with their money today. How or why are tommorrows
customers more valuable?



Iso.

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 04:54:49 UTC