|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/09/06 10:55
In article <e3oced$5sc$1@emma.aioe.org>,
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The one thing is: with next to no effort they could have made their
> > sites accessible and usable for people without flash and without
> > images too. Providing some alt text on the images will do soooo much
> > for example.
>
> I was just about to post the exact same thing -- those guys are obviously
> *very* good designers, very talented, but I think they're ignorant. I say
> that because there's no reason for them not to have made those sites more
> accessible, had they been aware of that, it would be have been little or no
> extra effort for them to have done so, and I doubt very much that they
> deliberately made them inaccessible, so I guess they're just not aware of
> it.
>
> There are also techniques they could have used (had they used CSS instead of
> tables for layout) so that they didn't have to cut their images into so many
> slices, thereby reducing load time considerably and still looking exactly
> the same. In fact, some of the clever stuff they've done with the layout
> would have been much easier with CSS than with tables.
I think someone recently offered a challenge along the lines of
"show me a table based site that looks good and I will show
produce it in accessible css driven mode". Well, sorry I forget
who said this, was it you Nik?, the arty sites being mentioned in
this thread are excellent example sites to do it with. As a
demonstration (if you have time...) to better ground this
discussion.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|