Posted by Andy Dingley on 05/08/06 14:03

Michael Laplante wrote:

> The philosophy of some people here is that websites should be designed for
> maximum accessibility. In pursuit of that goal, I've seen a lot of -- well
> let's call them bland -- websites.

You raise an interesting point, but this is a false contradiction.
Blandness is certainly common, but it's generally the result of
uninspired design, not accessible design. You don't _have_ to be bland
to be accessible. Nor does good design have to be inaccessible. Even
"gee whizz" design doesn't _require_ inaccessibility.

Rather than seeing a contradiction between design goals, I see a
dichotomy amongst designers. "Usability" is still the province of the
technocrat, not the talented web designer. For reasons rooted in the
poor training of web designers more than anything, the talented graphic
people just aren't familiar with the accessibility issues - even today.

Then there are the truly unskilled at any part of the process, and
their tendency to grab for the shiniest tools and gimmicks. This is
what tends to equate "design" with inaccessible, but it isn't even good
design at that.

[Back to original message]