RE: compatibility

> you will
> > STILL get the message "Please upgrade your browser to a graphical one"

I do believe I mentioned that Language was important (but I know I did not
say that!) - if there is issue with "how" I say it, fair enough, let's look
at wording, I ain't Shakespeare.

<q>
"This site has been optimized for graphical browsers which support web
standards [link to W3C], ensuring that the information on this page is
accessible to all regardless of which browser they are using.  If you are
receiving this message, you may be due for a browser upgrade [link to page
explaing why and where, etc.] - the webmaster"
</q>

In my example, I stated that the site had been optimized for graphical
browsers which support the current standards and that it *may* be time to
upgrade, not that it WAS or that the user SHOULD, only that maybe they
could.  I then proposed to create a link to a page which further explains
the issue (including perhaps links for further study), and why I am
suggesting the possible need for a upgrade (with perhaps links to Opera,
Microsoft, Mozilla, and/or others).  If it is relevant or interesting to
you, great, if not, surf on.

If a visitor is using the current build of Lynx, then they don't need to
upgrade - but remember I mentioned that it was optimized for *graphical*
browsers: if you are using a text only browser in 2002 then it is generally
by choice or specific circumstances and the balance of the content need not
apply (although, because the site makes use of current technologies it
actually allows me to make it *more* accessible to text only browsers by
placing the important information at the top of the page and the
non-important information at the bottom).  Find the right way to say that to
your users without being condescending - I'm not the copywriter at this
party.

I'm trying to address a bigger picture here - the need for education.  This
list continually goes on about explaining and educating the client, but
never the end user.  Why not?  *NOT* doing so is to me equally patronizing,
as if we belong to some secret club complete with special handshake.  What
is so wrong with being pro-active?

And again, I ask, how is a scheme such as this inaccessible?

JF


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: July 16, 2002 3:53 PM
> To: RUST Randal; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: compatibility
>
>
>
> the reality is that we should express what is needed and not demean
> people.  upgrading is not a solution as has been stated so let's use the
> correct nomenclature for it.  Better yet, let's do our best to find a
> way not to have to use it at all.  Wait a minute.  How about, please
> upgrade to the latest version of your graphical or text browser of
> choice for greatest enjoyment if possible.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
> To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:47 PM
> Subject: RE: compatibility
>
>
>
> > Good. Then, when using a Speech or Braille browser, you will
> > STILL get the message "Please upgrade your browser to a graphical one"
> EVERY
> > single time you access a document.
>
> Now wait a minute here, sighted users get a lot of junk they don't want
> either, but seem to deal with it OK.  Why can't this be expected of
> users
> with alternative devices?
>
> I don't mean to tick anyone off either, but this is getting silly.
> Let's
> try to solve the problem.
>
> The reality is, you can just put a "Skip Message" link in front of it.
> That
> can't really be anymore annoying than a "Skip Navigation" link.
>
> Randal
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 17:02:35 UTC