aware-techniques archives | Mar 2002 | new search | results | previous | next |
Tom Thanks for the clarification and no doubt you are right. Probably why we have to deal with legislation in order to incorporate aspects of accessibility that will (can?) have both fortunate and unfortunate aspects. Not exactly a level playing field, is it? I guess, where the wheat will be separated from the chaff will be the developers who not only incorporate accessibility aspects but do so without loss of design quality. And, although I understand the point about preferences, I will continue to expound on the necessity for working outside of narrow boundaries. If anything, most people with disabilities don't expect others to look at things necessarily from their perspective - they would just like people to take a broader view of the world. I'm just not willing to draw that line in the sand that says I stop here because this meets the needs of the "majority". Majority can mean 51%. Ah, but heck, that's enough for today - I'm a little worn out and probably not making much sense :) Spring break and a houseful of teens on a snowy day can do that to one. :) thanks, Shelley > For years, accessible design discussion groups have had periodic > topics about how it is possible to have visually compelling sites > that are quite functional and fully accessible -- the point being to > demonstrate that accessible design does not have to mean "dumbed > down" or "designed to the lowest common denominator." The examples > that get cited always fall short of the mark -- my opinion -- and the > result has been that we have not proven the point to the larger > audience of web designers and web surfers. That's a great failing of > the accessible design movement -- again, my opinion. > > When we have these discussions, we often lapse into the perspective > that our preference for web sites ought to be everyone's preference. > That just isn't the way things are.
HWG: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA