Re: really?

[I've dropped html-public, as this particular response might be
counterproductive in that group, at least with those who are about
ready to give up.]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 2:09 PM, William
Loughborough<wloughborough@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tab wrote:
>
> "None of this affects the basic premise that, in general, authors won't do a
> thing about it if it doesn't offer them tangible benefits in visual
> rendering or mouse-based interaction."
>
> "Authors(1990) are NOT Authors(2010)" and the lack of "affect" has markedly
> changed in this regard

hmm... my personal opinion was that it had gotten much worse, except
for a few years when alt usage improved -- because it was (improperly)
displayed as tool-tips.

Admittedly, my start-time-reference was 1993, rather than 1990, but
... things getting worse was a general pattern, only occasionally
pushed back (in one-time leaps) by better tools.

> A very frequent revelation for one over the years is how one gets changed by
> begetting a blind child or meeting and being befriended by a quadriplegic
> colleague. These things ARE changing and that's why it's important not only
> to continue to try (however futilely) to automate these efforts, but to
> raise this consciousness. There really are moments of epiphany when you just
> "get it" and are moved from "lazy" author who just doesn't give a shit to an
> advocate who joins those on the soap boxes.

I have often been an advocate, and somtimes an effective one, because
I can *show* colleagues how unreadable things are on my own screen.
(Eyesight poor, but not remotely blind.)  The existence of a blind
co-worked was also sometimes helpful, but as an advocate -- he was
reluctant to say that things were too hard for him (and risk his job),
so it didn't really get the point across as clearly.

My own rare use of longdesc was apparently wrong (I put in values,
rather than URLs).  There have been times when I myself forgot alt
(because I was in a hurry and forgot to validate).  I have sometimes
resorted to layout tables or FONT tags when I was in a hurry.  I still
don't think I could do a good "summary".

If I -- someone who has personal motivation as well as long experience
and knowledge of the actual specs -- can't get it right, then nothing
but well-funded bureaucratic reports stands much of a chance.
Accessibility needs to be simplified if it is to work in the real
world, as opposed to just in theory.

Moving the burden from authors to web browsers is a very good way to
improve support -- but only if browsers understand what they need to
do.  It won't be perfect, but it can be better.  Holding out for
perfect just delays the better.

-jJ

Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 18:40:08 UTC