|
|
Posted by Neo Geshel on 05/16/05 23:53
kchayka wrote:
> Neo Geshel wrote:
>
>>Gazza wrote:
>>
>>>Fails Automated WAI Level A, let alone Level AAA.
>>
>>I don�t know what you used to do the validation on these, but this site:
>>http://webxact.watchfire.com/
>
>
> Are you using this to determine that a site is accessible? <rolls eyes>
>
> Following the WAI guidelines blindly does not mean the site is
> accessible, not by a long shot.
>
> If you're only interested in pleasing some automated checker, then say
> so. If you're truly interested in creating accessible sites, then don't
> depend on some tool telling you it's good or not. Use your brain.
>
> Just don't claim the site is accessible coz some automated checker says
> it is.
Did I ever say I did? No. That’s why the 508 and AAA links at the bottom
of the page don’t lead to any automated checker (unlike the XHTML and
CSS links). It’s easy enough to do, but I don’t do it because I don’t
DEPEND on the checkers. I simply use them as a “minimum guideline” and
go from there.
>>But my main thrust of support is for TTS readers. Not ppl
>>with images turned off or CSS disabled.
>
>
> Accessibility is a heck of a lot more than just accommodating blind
> users. If you really had a clue about this subject, you would know that.
Of course I know that. But show me a peer-reviewed research paper that
indicates the usage of browsers that have images or css turned off as
being larger than the number of TTS readers, and I’ll gladly change my tune.
IMHO, I don’t know of any study that puts no-images and no-css users as
being anywhere even on the map. eight to ten years ago, this would have
been an issue. Eight to ten years ago, people still used 9,800 and
14,400 baud modems (I did!) and often turned off images (so did I!) in
order to get faster page loads. Not anymore.
Sure, you might get the odd hermetic geek in his parent’s dank basement
that has images and css turned off, but that’s bound to be the exception
rather than the rule. And I highly doubt that he’s looking for
Continental Kits. But a blind spouse looking for a Kit for her Husband’s
birthday, now THAT is a potential scenario that I can believe in.
Let’s get logical, let’s get reasonable. Let’s NOT get into a
nit-picking debate over the Emperor’s new clothes.
...Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|