- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:33:09 -0500 (EST)
- To: Marjolein Katsma <access@javawoman.com>
- cc: W3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I have to admit, I agree with Marjolein that this is not a very impressive effort, from my reading of a handful of pages on the site. Although I am sighted, I tend to use a text-only browser where possible to avoid problems with poorly specified fonts and backgrounds, and because it si more convenient. So I looked through both versions using the same browser. The differences I noted were as follows: in the low-graphics version there are non-link characters separating links on the same line. in the high-graphics version there is not appropriate alt text for the images used as bullets. I don't have many fonts on my machine, so I tend to have readable text all the time but I note Marjolein's comments. Which hardly seems justification for two separate pages so as to help people with little ability to use graphics. In fact, with a little thoughtful use of style sheets they could have significantly reduced bandwidth requirements on the high-graphics version. Charles McCN On Sat, 19 Feb 2000, Marjolein Katsma wrote: I'll politely disagree here... At 09:43 2000-02-19 -0800, you wrote: >Hi, > >NIDRR's Abledata website is an excellent example of accomodating a wide >range of users' preferences. For people who have the band-width >and prefer very visually interesting presentation with rich graphics >and features using Java, there is one set of pages. [snip] >I have to admit I'm impressed with the thought that went into designing >this web site. MK: Um - I'm not impressed at all. A really good design for the content (at least the content I've seen) would be accessible to all and not even necessitate two versions.
Received on Sunday, 20 February 2000 12:33:12 UTC