From the WiseWomen List: Reply #2

I did some more polling of members of the Wise-Women web design list,
to get their opinions on the matter and to see what perspectives they
could offer which we might not have strongly represented.  (For example,
I am -not- an artistic person and don't consider myself a graphic
artist, so I can't represent those viewpoints myself.)

Here's the second of two that I've received so far:

>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:44:56 -0400
>From: Devra Polack <devra@omnimediagrp.com>
>Reply-To: devra@webspinster.com
>X-Accept-Language: en
>To: kynn@idyllmtn.com
>Subject: CSS vs. textual graphics
>
>Hi, Kynn.
>
>I'm writing you privately because I'm unfortunately tied to an smtp
>server for a couple of weeks (in this office, anyway) that won't allow
>outgoing mail from other accounts; so I can't post to the WW list from
>my subscribed e-mail address for the time being.
>
>1) Has monitor resolution settings been mentioned in the WCAG
>discussions as a viable option for the partially visually impaired?  I
>mean in terms of text graphics not being 'enlargeable' from the user end
>font settings. For example, my mother keeps her 20" monitor set to 800 x
>600.  Macs and Windows98+ allow you to change your resolution settings
>back and forth without having to reboot (something I constantly do as a
>designer anyway, to view both graphics and pages at different
>resolutions). I don't know how often nondesigners flip back and forth
>between 640 x 480 and higher resolutions, but maybe that *should* be one
>recommended option for zooming/enlarging for the substantial majority of
>users who have the capabilities.  For this user group, it would improve
>the visibility not just of text graphics, but other visual information
>as well.
>
>2) IE5 on a pc has a zoom option; I don't believe the most current Mac
>IE does. I think it would be an excellent recommendation for the wc3 to
>make to software developers (for what that's worth!), but this is of
>course not standardized; just another option for one sector.
>
>3) CSS navigation causes headaches both from older browsers and the
>cross-platform-browser inconsistencies between more current ones.  I do
>use it, but I wouldn't call it the most accessible option.  It requires
>a great deal more design/programming time than a simple <noscript>
>provision.    For instance, webreference.com has the best (and best
>documented) script I've seen for CSS hierarchical mouseover menus, but
>look at the compatibility chart:
>http://www.webreference.com/dhtml/hiermenus/compatibility/ .  A lot of
>mac users (NN 4.0 and 4.02 and IE 4.0, 4.01, and 4.5) are left in the
>cold, not to mention unix users.  This means having to provide redirects
>in both js and <noscript> to a non-js based version--or to multiple
>versions where css is provided for mac compatibility as well. 
>
>And the non-js version?  Unless it aims for text-only, it will often
>rely heavily on text graphics.
>
>I'm thrilled that CSS compatibility is much improved in the most recent
>versions of NN and IE on both mac and pc, but who can rely on users
>having the most recent version, let alone a semi-current one?  
>
>Anyway, that's my $.02. Thanks for bringing these issues to the list--
>Devra
>
>P.s.-- NOAA (the Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Assoc.) just last spring
>released web accessibility guidelines on all web pages going live from
>June 2000 on, by the way. It's a pretty large umbrella org. and is
>requiring this of all subgroups. I thought this was a  federal mandate
>and was surprised to learn that fed. orgs. are able to come up with
>their own specific policies.
>
>  It mostly detailed the use of alt tags, written scripts for audio/video
>media clips, and that navigation links/info must be available to those
>without js, java, and vision/graphical browsers.  Though the NOAA policy
>was probably a year or more in the making (given how long it takes to be
>reviewed & approved by all the proper channels), I don't believe it
>mentioned anything about browser compatibility.

-- 
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 20:42:46 UTC