Third Forward from Wise Women List

>From: "Nathalie Lachance" <lachance@natmark.net>
>To: "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
>Subject: RE: [WW] Opinions Needed: Using CSS instead of Textual Graphics
>Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:22:32 -0500
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>Importance: Normal
>
>Hi Kynn,
>
>I know I'm a bit late to give my opinion on this, but business is taking a
>big bite out of my time schedule these past few months and I often find
>myself with 500+ messages to read in the WW inbox. So I hope this is not too
>late for you. Before I forget, I give you permission to use this message and
>forward it to whomever you wish in your organization if you deem it of some
>interest.
>
>I will address this CSS instead of Textual Graphics issue at the same time
>as I will tell you about other concerns of mine.
>
>Personally, I think that the WC3 forgets about one very important thing
>here: we as designers have to report to _the client_. Yes, it is our job to
>educate the client, but we also have to eat. Therefore the client's final
>decision will almost always prevail over anything we might want to make him
>understand about accessibility.
>
>I can only take myself as an example as I hate to generalize. But I am sure
>if you ask the WW list, you will most probably get people to acquiesce to
>this fact.
>
>After 3 years of intense design I realize one thing: when a client asks for
>your portfolio, he doesn't give a damn about accessibility, blind people,
>deaf people, visually impaired or anything that might represent 1 or 2% of
>his targeted clientele. He's targeting the bulk of his clientele and he
>wants to know what your work looks like "visually". He DOES NOT understand
>the code behind it or even the functionality. If we produce a page that
>looks like it's "text only", the client will bolt ! He's looking for flash,
>for show, for emotion, for graphics. The text only look he figures he can
>achieve by himself in his basement using one of those hundred available
>WYSIWYG pieces of software available out there. Heck Kynn, sorry to admit
>but this is how I started !  I designed my very first personal Web page with
>Word 97 !
>
>The Web for him (the client) is an ADDITION to his traditional way of doing
>business. He's just "trying it out" to see if he'll like it and maybe (just
>maybe) down the road (read 2 or 3 years from now) he'll finally make up his
>mind. If the site doesn't bring in visitors, he'll blame the designer (never
>himself for not providing anything to upgrade content or not simply
>promoting the site on his advertising). He'll gripe and ask for measuring
>tools and counters. He'll ask to access his site stats and have no idea how
>to interpret them but doesn't want to pay you to do it for him.
>
>This is why I believe that using CSS instead of textual graphics is an
>utopia, because it would make most designs "blah" to say the least. We'd
>then have to resort to use of _other_ images to try and liven up a page -
>those other images we'd have to buy and the client wouldn't want to pay...
>
>So it all comes down to one thing: COST !  I do not doubt the good intents
>of the people at the W3C and I'm doing everything I can to try and boost
>accessibility in my designs with alt text on images and links. I make a
>point of reading all your messages on the list and value your expertise in
>the matter. But making a site FULLY accessible takes a LOT of time for a
>designer. And times means money. And money the client never wants to spend
>too much 'cause "he's just trying it out". So he's always asking for "a
>little site with a lot of punch". If I say I can't do it 'cause I'm
>determined to only build W3C compliant sites that would take me more time,
>I'll literally starve.
>
>Furthermore, whatever I've read about CSS problems up to now on the list
>really isn't pushing me to hurry up and learn it. There are still much too
>much browser issues lying around for me to compromise design integrity
>(i.e. - what I know works).
>
>I don't know what the W3C's position is concerning browser makers, but I
>think the pressure should be put on THEM instead of the designers. 'cause
>whatever we do, we're always caught in the browser and platform issues. What
>works, what doesn't, which ones have quirk A and which have quirk Z, how
>does it look on PC and how does it look on Mac.
>
>As a designer, I don't even have time to go READ the W3C website. So much
>text I don't know where to begin. I'm constantly distracted by a phone call,
>an urgent message or my eyes falling out so there is no way for me to read
>for 30 minutes straight. I've gotten lost in there (and honestly lost
>interest) many times. Although I haven't visited for over a year now, so
>things might have changed since. I don't know.
>
>So all in all, I say a big NO to the using of CSS instead of Textual
>Graphics and I wish the W3C would turn part of its efforts towards putting
>the pressure on the browser MAKERS instead of the designers. It feels to me
>like I have the Web police constantly looking over my shoulder and breathing
>down my neck. Or how about making a section of your Website aimed at our
>clients so we can point them there when it's time to educate them and where
>we can show them what their site would look like and cost if we were using
>all of those standards.
>
>Bottom line is, the client decides. The average client can understand
>download time issues, traffic issues, JavaScript issues... but he simply
>doesn't CARE about disability and is not willing to put any money towards
>it. We as designers have to eat and I hate feeling guilty all the time
>because the very first sites I did didn't have any alt tags.
>
>Do I sound exasperated ? Maybe I am a bit. There is already so much damn
>stuff to know all around and all of it changes so darn fast all the time
>that it's sometimes overwhelming.
>
>Still, I am grateful for the work the W3C is doing and really do believe in
>its basic mission. I just wish it didn't feel so much like "big brother" all
>the time. But maybe that's my Christian up-bringing... LOL
>
>Have a good day Kynn and hope this input is of some help...
>
>Nat
>
>Nathalie Lachance, presidente
>lachance@natmark.net
>(514) 990-4882
>
>Natmark-Concept
>Laval (Quebec) Canada
>www.natmark.net
>
>Tout pour vous faire bien paraitre.
>Working hard to make you look good.
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Monday, 30 October 2000 01:42:57 UTC