- From: Elle Waters <nethermind@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:58:48 -0500
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> The designers will try to justify their fees by claiming that that eye candy is what subtly influences visitors to the site to do what they owners of the site want them to do. That's why it is so difficult to get people to design universal sites. > > (I think that they also miss the fact that a significant number of consumers see through the eye candy, and would actually be more positively influenced by a site with real facts and negatives as well as positives, but that is against the marketing culture.) > > -- > David Woolley Respectfully, I feel I should remind everyone that design is not the antonym of accessibility. The more we propagate that myth, the longer we battle against creative designers who could, should, and can be our allies. Sincerely, A chick in marketing who thinks hourly about universal accessibility for all On Feb 18, 2012, at 6:05 AM, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > accessys@smart.net wrote: >> all that @@&*$^%@ eye candy... > > The designers will try to justify their fees by claiming that that eye candy is what subtly influences visitors to the site to do what they owners of the site want them to do. That's why it is so difficult to get people to design universal sites. > > (I think that they also miss the fact that a significant number of consumers see through the eye candy, and would actually be more positively influenced by a site with real facts and negatives as well as positives, but that is against the marketing culture.) > > -- > David Woolley > Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. > RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, > that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. >
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 21:58:09 UTC