- From: Sean Lindsay <editor@outlookmagazine.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:44:20 +0800
- To: "WAI Authoring Guidelines Group" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The remarks I made about Javascript and XML solutions were intended as flippant - but they reflect my belief that if you explain what the problem is to a halfway decent web designer, especially a professional, they will come up with an innovative solution that best suits their website, and their audience. Perhaps I'm confused as to the intent of the Guidelines themselves? Is the intention to steer designers towards best practices for accessibility, or to assist in identifying/solving existing accessibility problems? I suspect that Jason is advocating the former while I am advocating the latter. Both are necessary in one form or another, and obviously it's a shame that as yet they are not perfectly compatible. I believe it's too early to advocate a CSS-only solution. Current support for CSS is so varied that pages will not only look inconsistent, but in some cases (in IE3) can actually look worse than plain structural HTML. A page that displays poorly and inconsistently in graphical browsers may be technically accessible, but it forms a barrier for sighted users. The lack of consistent CSS support today's browsers is an issue that designers will have to accommodate for another year or more at least, just as designs often still accommodate the limitations of v2.0 browsers. If the guidelines insist on designing for tomorrow's browsers at the expense of today's, you are asking designers to ignore the majority of their current audience. The guidelines need to advocate accessibility as well as define it. A designer reading the guidelines is still deciding whether the changes are worth implementing. It may be the first, and only, document they read on the subject. As a designer I want to know what conditions I need to meet to guarantee 100% accessibility for my users - but I'll settle for satisfactory accessibility 100% of the time. I also want to know how to achieve this with the minimum amount of alteration to my existing design, and disruption for existing users. Currently the guidelines don't answer the second question. And as a designer who's responding to a complaint from a user (in my case this is literally true), I can't wait for browsers or authoring tools to catch up, and more than I could ask the user (now or in the future) to upgrade their software. Regards, Sean Lindsay Editor - OutLook Magazine's Disability Web http://www.outlookmagazine.com editor@outlookmagazine.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 1998 15:45:09 UTC