Posted by Neredbojias on 05/08/06 00:39

To further the education of mankind, "Michael Laplante"
<nowhereman@twilightzone.net> vouchsafed:

> The Internet is this rich medium, but could the "maximum
> accessibility" concept reduce it to the most banal denominator?

Taken to extremes, yes. The idea is to compromise intelligently.

> Some people here sneer at anything that uses fixed widths, flash,
> tables layouts, etc. I've been to business sites that blow me away
> with their creativity and design using all these techniques and more
> -- I return to them repeatedly just to admire them. Advertising and
> market awareness works on the principle of repetition so these website
> are doing what good advertising should do. On the other hand some of
> the sites designed by some in this ng (no names) -- well, they are so
> plain that I wouldn't bookmark them in a thousand years.

Other people would.

> Also, for certain sites -- entertainment sites primarily -- the medium
> IS the message so the look becomes rather more important than the
> text. Or do you disagree? How about the requirements of corporate
> identity which might demand the use of certain colours, fonts, logos,
> etc?

> So what are your thoughts?

Well, I think of girls once every 7 seconds...

> At what point do YOU decide how a site
> should look rather than leaving it to a user?

Oh, I see. Well, the answer to that is at all points. I am the
pagemaker, therefore I am the decision-maker. Of course my decisions are
influenced by other considerations, and I strongly believe in standards-
uniformity and validator-valid markup. I also give great weight to the
opinions of those in this newsgroup who have convinced me they know what
they are talking about (although that is a judgment-call on my part,
too.) When it comes to brass tacks, a page _must_ please the author
first and foremost. It _should_ please the user, naturally, but stating
that user-wants have priority over author-wants is balderdash.

> How much do you
> compromise accessibility for design considerations such as layout,
> graphics, etc.?

It probably depends most on the nature of the page. If I have a page
entitled "Hirsute Hula Hags of Honolulu" which is primarily composed of
hedonistic graphics, I'm not going to be particularly concerned how it
renders in an aural browser. On the other hand, if I create a page
called "The Frustration of CSS in the Western, Eastern, and Third
Worlds," I may be wise to follow accessibility guidelines more closely.
Ultimately, though, it is the author's page, and while he should use good
sense in its construction, he is "The Man" (-or she is "The Woo-Man",
whichever the case may be.)

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Back to original message]