- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:57:59 -0400
- To: "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chapin" <pdchapin@AMHERST.EDU> To: <EASI@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Web Access; When the Rubber Meets the Road > Seems like you're saying that visual effects are more important than > the information being communicated, and that you want to have visually > attractive pages at the expense of those pages being accessible to > all. > Not quite what I'm saying. Let's ignore the fact that better visual presentation makes a page nicer to look at for the sighted reader, or that many graphic designers use design to emphasize content, or that sighted users use visual clues to select and process information on a page faster. There are practical effects that any graphic designer is well aware. For example, large blocks of text are inherently unpleasant and difficult to read. Wide blocks are especially difficult. The simple graphic solution is to divide the page into columns so individual lines are of limited width. This significantly improves the readability of the text to the sighted user and is why newspapers and magazines have been using columns for decades. But the accessibility of column text like this is highly problematic with low end software. I'm fully willing to argue that sighted users may have to give up some of the whiz-bang visuals in order to make pages accessible. While at this point this group probably considers me a troglodyte, around here I'm thought of as that annoying person who keeps pointing out accessibility problems. What I am arguing is that we should not make the process of creating accessible resources any harder than necessary, or require non-disabled users to give up anything unless it's really necessary. The goal here is equal access to information by making access easier for the disabled, not by making it harder for the non-disabled. > I also hear you complaining about people who refuse to upgrade their > software, making accessibility by non graphical and non-java browsers > necessary. You seem to be saying that people refuse to upgrade their > software as opposed to are not able to upgrade their software. > I am saying that. Remember that this whole thread was based on the premise that good software would be made available at little or not cost. The cost logically should be borne by the web sites since, by making it easier to create accessible pages, they benefit directly from the upgrades. Practically, it would probably have to come out of either the government, universities or the open source movement. > Paul, people do not upgrade mainly because of the cost factor. Also, > it is difficult to learn new software, and people feel comfortable > with what they have. I don't consider that a reasonable objection. Most people feel comfortable creating inaccessible web pages. Would you are argue that they should continue to do so? I think it behooves both sides to put some effort into this. Laura raises some interesting questions. One of the most important, which I mentioned in the original post, is whether, given the variety of disabilities that we are dealing with, it is possible to create a software package or packages that can take web pages involving some of the more sophisticated features available to designers and make them accessible to all possible users. This is a critical question since even if there is a software solution that works with most of the disabled, it wouldn't be acceptable if it resulted in web pages that omitted others. The principle of the lowest common denominator still applies; the goal is to raise the denominator. I don't feel qualified to answer that question. Let's take JavaScript for an example. Can anybody come up with a case where a sufficiently intelligent piece of software would not be able to deal with a JavaScript and convert it into something useful? And a final comment on PDAs and handhelds. As you may guess, I'm not a fan. They have some uses, but until the price gets to something below fifty dollars (and the 800 dollar price was from the article, not me) I'll stick with my pocket pad and pen. The interesting question is whether most web pages are really appropriate for minimal displays. Ironically, the visually impaired are probably in a better position for dealing with PDAs that the sighted since they're use to processing web pages linearly. Personally, I wouldn't go to most web pages if I had to run the output through a PDA simply because the data flow is too slow. If I want movie times, it might make sense. If I'm checking out college web site to see if I want to go there, no. ------ Paul Chapin Curricular Computing Specialist Amherst College 413 542-2144
Received on Friday, 13 July 2001 08:58:09 UTC