- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:51:27 -0800
- To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Saturday, March 15, 2003, at 05:27 AM, David Woolley wrote: > One reason for JAWS honouring the visual behaviour, besides the fact > that > it is a bolt on to a visual rendering model, not an aural browser, may > well be that this sort of tactic has long been used to keyword stuff > pages > for search engines (even though many search engine operators say they > will > blacklist people caught doing this). The old version of my employer's > web page used to have large amounts of white on white text and I've > seen > that particular tactic on the pages of more well known companies, both > long after reports of search engine blacklisting. > > It's an unfortunate fact of life that any technique designed to > provide alternative content for the blind is likely to be abused > in this way, and JAWS has to be designed for run of the mill pages, > not those written by people who care about accessibility. > A good plan for screen readers, if possible, would be to use the idea of "quirks mode" as developed by a number of browsers for CSS rendering. There's a "quirks mode" which preserves the bad habits that web developers have come accustomed to from legacy browsers, and a "standards" mode which does things the right way. The switch is whether or not a certain doctype has been specified. I'm not sure what the switch should be for "accessible" mode, but I'm sure we might be able to come up with something to suggest. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2003 02:48:29 UTC