Re: Designing for WebTV

Bill:

I do not think this subject is Off Topic. It seems to me that it is very
relevant to web site planning. So--I've just got to jump in here and defend
poor Lauren a bit.

Lauren said, (among other things):

> "but to infer that all sites should be accessible" ... "is >unreasonable
and even selfish, in my opinion."

Come on now--it may not be politically correct, but if you re-read the
sentence, it sounds pretty reasonable to me. She did not say some sites, or
most sites--she said "all sites should be ... ".

When you think about it, to insist that ALL sites be accessible is not only,
unreasonable, but downright silly. What good would it do for example--to
make a porno site accessible to a blind man?? Or a Clip Art site, for that
matter??

As it happens, I am visually impaired. My left eye points out--off  to port
somewhere. Doesn't bother me all that much cause I can't see anything out of
it anyway. And while the much repaired, re-attached, and re-lens-ed right
eye can--with appropriate glasses--make out street signs, other vehicles and
pedestrians, I am now forced to limit my model airplane flying to larger,
lower and brightly colored models. When shooting, I have the choice of
either a blurry target or blurry sights. I guess it can't be TOO bad. I
passed California's rather strict vision guidelines for a driver's license.

However--being blind in one eye--would it not be a little silly, and
yes--selfish too, for me to insist that 3-D movies be banned??  Does a
person who is deaf in one ear have the right to cry foul because the world
now has stereophonic sound??

I have three full length Action adventure novels on the web. When I ran them
past "Bobby" they all failed because I have tables on the pages and the
complaint was that a text reader has to go past all the links in the left
hand column before it gets to the text of the novel in the right column.
Actually, they don't look all that bad on Web TV although the line length is
pretty short.

So--am I now going to go to all the work to produce an entire new set of
ninety-odd chapters on the off chance that some visually impaired person may
somehow, someday, stumble across my obvious, but questionable, talent and
wit??

Well--yes--someday I am. But so far, I've yet to hear anyone volunteering to
help.

BTW--Our Mobile home park just put a wheelchair ramp at the main office. Of
course, there are no sidewalks anywhere and all the "streets" have full
width, wheelchair crashing Baptist bumps every couple of hundred feet. Go
figure??

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/novels/
www.newsredding.com/
www.ramac-rc.org/



> Am I reading this right?
>
> "but to infer that all sites should be accessible" ... "is unreasonable
and even selfish, in my opinion."
>
> Did you really say that?
>
> Bill Austin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lauren Hanka [mailto:bluejay(at)starband.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 6:13 PM
> To: hwg-basics(at)hwg.org
> Subject: Re: Designing for WebTV
>
>
> Bill,
>
> What do I say? and why would you have me go through so much in addition to
> my original trouble and frustrations, which was designing for WebTV?
>
> I could beat my chest about certain things too... but I choose not to,
> because I don't expect the entire world to accommodate me. I don't whine
> about inconveniences --I just deal with them. I participate in the things
I
> am able to. Everyone has their special cross to bear --their lessons to
> learn. The Internet is enjoyed by a primarily *viewing* audience. True?
> It's good to design sites for special users in mind --that's pleasing a
> *target audience,* but to infer that all sites should be accessible to a
> favorite minority is unreasonable and even selfish, in my opinion. Why add
> to others' burdens?
>
> Lauren
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA