- From: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:57:37 -0500
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, <jim@jimthatcher.com>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Forgive the cliché but - aren't we 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'? As long as a tag like <font> does not impede accessibility I see no reason to go to war over it. When I talk to others about these issues I find it useful to relate things to the physical world, and it seems to me that some of this is like insisting all the stairs be removed when ramps are installed. Sure, that would guarantee the same access for all, but it would punish those who walk by making them take a longer route. As for EGO of designers, in my somewhat limited experience, the finger is being pointed at the wrong people. The content providers are often from a 'paper' publishing background and with that mindset they want the slick company brochures or whatever, to look a certain way. Often, all the explanation in the world won't budge them from even the most obvious things like using non web-safe colors. As long as a web page is pixel perfect on the system they use, it is quite beyond them to grasp that others might see it in a different way. Just try to convince a client that has a T1 at work and a cable modem at home that all those graphics are a bad idea! The 80/20 rule is interesting, but the only presentation that counts is the one to guy who is paying the bill. I have many fully sighted friends who will routinely use the 'text only' version of a site when one is available, because they are interested in content, not 'flash'. Just try and convince a publisher of that! Marti
Received on Sunday, 17 December 2000 06:47:25 UTC