Re: RE: accessibility makeovers

One of my main goals was to ensure that I didn't change the 
look and feel of the site too drastically. That was my main 
consideration for not converting the graphics into text. 
However, after taking another look at those graphics, I 
think that I could probably convert them into a font 
without too much trouble, and without sacrificing the look 
and feel. I may decide to do this at some point, but 
probably not right away (I have some other documents that I 
need to prepare for the web). It is a valid concern, and 
you're right, it is a priority 3 violation. I wasn't trying 
to make a priority 3 compliant document, but with a little 
effort I probably could get closer by converting the main 
tabs on top into text.  

> Paul,
> Excellent demonstration. I did want to ask about one 
issue: On the top menu
> ("home, bookstore, ebooks...") the links are still 
graphics, and, as such,
> can't be enlarged/color-enhanced using the operating 
> settings. I know there has been dicussion of images-as-
text being a WCAG
> checkpoint 3.1 violation, and I assume the problem was 
that there was no
> good way to get the same appearance using styled text. 
I'm just curious to
> hear your (and others') thoughts on the pro and cons of 
this compromise --
> this has been an issue I've struggled with on several 
> Mike
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-]On
> > Behalf Of Paul Bohman
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 3:23 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: accessibility makeovers
> >
> >
> > One of the concerns that Web developers often have is 
that they think that
> > accessible web pages are boring or ugly. To disprove 
this myth, I am doing
> > "accessibility makeovers" of some of the more popular 
sites on the Web. I
> > decided to start with Barnes and Noble's Web site, 
because it was very
> > inaccessible to screen readers, and the fixes were 
relatively easy.
> >
> > You can see the "before" and "after" version of the 
Barnes and Noble home
> > page by visiting
> >
> > I would like to do other sites, such as CNN, ESPN, etc, 
which are usually
> > quite graphical and which fit the prevailing notion 
of "attractiveness" in
> a
> > Web page. I'd like to have as many examples as 
possible, in fact. That's
> one
> > of the reasons why I'm writing this email.
> >
> > Invitation to contribute:
> >
> > I invite anybody who is interested to do a web page 
makeover of a popular
> > web site (just one page, e.g. the home page) so that it 
can be posted in
> our
> > WebAIM makeover "hall of fame." Your reward will be 
full recognition of
> your
> > efforts (the makeover will be posted on the web along 
with an
> > acknowledgement of your efforts), the satisfaction of 
contributing to the
> > education of webmasters everywhere . . . but, alas, 
there will be no
> > monetary remuneration.
> >
> > The idea is to document the changes that you made to 
the page, and to
> > provide a concrete example for other web developers to 
emulate. There are
> > plenty examples of inaccessible design. I'm trying to 
put together a
> > collection of good, accessible designs that are neither 
boring nor ugly.
> >
> > If you'd like to participate, contact me for more info
> (,
> > or just send me the before and after versions of the 
page along with a
> > description of the changes that you made.
> >
> > Thanks so much!
> >
> > Paul Bohman
> > Technology Coordinator
> > Web Accessibility in Mind (
> > at the Center for Persons with Disabilities 
> > at Utah State University (
> >
> >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2001 01:23:26 UTC