Re: Textual Images vs. Styled Text, Round Two *ding*

(my apologies for the delay in responding to this point...)

On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

> It is foolish to assume that they are making mistakes with the
> goal of _reducing_ access; 

I hear what you say.  But I feel that enough of them have told me
plainly that they put in considerable additional effort to factor-out
the possibility of a display other than the precise one they designed,
failing which they would prefer that the reader got nothing at all.  
And when I look at many other sites, I feel that - if I posit that the
designer knew what s/he was doing - then they must have had a similar
intention.  Sometimes they even put statements onto the pages saying
as much.  As if (poor analogy) a book author would start by insisting
that their readers sit in a particular chair, under a particular kind
of lamp, and so on, before they dare to read the book.

> This is why so many web designers get insulted by the typical
> web accessibility attitude of "we know better how the web should
> be used, and you are using it ALL WRONG and you are clearly
> MALICIOUS and TRYING TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE."

Is the person on the receiving end not allowed to correspondingly feel
insulted when they are, in effect, told that the designer does not
consider them fit to receive the information?

> Alan, earlier this month you wrote the following, 

Indeed I did...

> Alan, try real hard to put yourself in the mindset of a graphic
> artist and look at this thread over the last week or so.  You will
> find _exactly_ where the idea comes from!

But the web is not limited to HTML+CSS: it comprises many other media.  
If the designer is so committed to producing a pixel-exact
presentation which behaves just as they intended it, failing which,
they intend the reader to get nothing at all, then there are ways to
do it.  My thesis is that by choosing HTML+CSS, they choose media
whose strength is in the production of flexible design which can look
stunning in appropriate viewing situations, yet does not unnecessarily
block access in a "graceful fallback" situation.

There is simply no way that a graphic designer, no matter how
ambitious, can make my Psion 5 b/w display look like my 21-inch
high-resolution 24-bit-colour-depth desktop display.  That's a simple
technical fact, which relates only to the capability of the physical
hardware.  But it seems to me that it can equally be applied to the
sensory capabilities of each reader.

> Many people are arguing that textual images _should not be used_.

I have not addressed that specific issue, though.

> "but you can't
> preserve the look of the site in older browsers with CSS!" 

It doesn't have to be an "older browser" for it to fail to "preserve
the look" of the site.  There are many other reasons for a browser to
not do that.  How to convince these sceptics that, without offering
any criticism of how their site looks in the situation that they
designed it for, there are other situations where it is beneficial for
it to "look" (or sound, or whatever) different at the reader's behest,
whereas an absolute insistence on their exact design would make their
web pages useless.  If they understand that, and decide that it's what
they want, I can't stop them.  Only their local legislators can, via 
disability access legislation.  Or their business sense, to understand
that money is money no matter who it comes from.

> being discounted with "they are in the wrong medium" or "those
> concerns are worthless."

No, Sir, they are not "being discounted": an alternative solution is
being offered for them to achieve their intentions; and the
consequences and implications of those intentions are being explored.

best regards

Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2000 18:00:26 UTC