Re: compatibility

On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 03:47:54PM -0400, RUST Randal wrote:

> 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?

  To quote a partially (very partially) sighted user I spoke with a while
  ago:

   "Oh, marvellous! A page without that CLUTTER of eyecandy!"

  My personal view here: the negative effect of really redundant information
  in a document is much larger if the content is presented to the user
  as one word at a time, read, or one phrase at a time, Brailled.

  A visual user (what a phrase ... ) can, with relative ease, skip sections
  of a document. A Braille or Speech user must, by definition, get the
  content linearized.



> I don't mean to tick anyone off either, but this is getting silly.  Let's
> try to solve the problem.
 
  We are. But I, and others, do not agree that the *right problem* is on
  the table.

  WHY do we want people to upgrade ?

  In order to achieve a more uniform spread of browser capabilities ?
  In order to remove older, buggy, browsers ?
  In order to achieve more uniform *visual appearences* of designs ?
  In order to achieve better *accessibility* ?



> 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.

  "Skip this message about upgrading your browser", you mean. If you just
  have a "Skip message", then I - atleast - would *not* skip it in case
  it was a *different* message.

  "Skip the navigation" is pretty universal from document to document.
  "Skip the message" may make me ask "Is this the SAME message as before ?"

-- 
 - Tina H.

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 17:19:00 UTC