Building Accessible Website

In article <4096b3c7$0$567$b45e6eb0 (AT) senator-bedfellow (DOT) mit.edu>,
jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu (John F. Carr) wrote:

How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.

What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

--
Kris
<kristiaan (AT) xs4all (DOT) netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>

In article Kris wrote:

In article <4096b3c7$0$567$b45e6eb0 (AT) senator-bedfellow (DOT) mit.edu>,
jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu (John F. Carr) wrote:

How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.

What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

Bogosity alert. It's about 100% sure that there is nothing that makes
sence on animated link.



--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
I'm looking for work | Etsin työtä

"John F. Carr" <jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu> wrote

In article <c75jfn$ictmr$1 (AT) ID-114100 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.messinger (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

"John F. Carr" <jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu> wrote in message
news:40963bbe$0$558$b45e6eb0 (AT) senator-bedfellow (DOT) mit.edu...
In article <c6trna$fsooa$1 (AT) ID-114100 (DOT) news.uni-berlin.de>,
Harlan Messinger <h.messinger (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

That leaves as the primary audiences of concern:

[...]

4. Those who are susceptible to seizure if blinking text or graphics
are
used. Simply put, avoid blinking.

How many such users are there, and how many of them use browsers
configured to blink or animate?

Why would they be any less likely to use, say, Internet Explorer than
anyone
else? Why would they be any less likely to access the Internet via a
device
whose configuration is outside their control such as, say, at the library
or
at an Internet cafe?

Because they know that the web is full of content that is harmful to
them and they need to take special precautions.

In other words, it's more important to feed your compulsion to use blinking
and flashing (which serve no necessary function AND which annoy many, if not
most, people) than to help assure the safety of the browsing experience for
other people wherever they go. Nice.

How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,

You're a real prince.

while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.

In article <kristiaan-04FC14.23100503052004 (AT) news1 (DOT) news.xs4all.nl>,
Kris <kristiaan (AT) xs4all (DOT) netherlands> wrote:

In article <4096b3c7$0$567$b45e6eb0 (AT) senator-bedfellow (DOT) mit.edu>,
jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu (John F. Carr) wrote:

How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.

What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value." I've agreed with the
latter since I first encountered the BLINK tag. I even have
a shell script that purges animated GIF files from my netscape
browser cache. (When I use NS4 I turn off automatic image
loading.)

--
John Carr (jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu)

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> a écrit dans le message de
news:Xns94DECBFC3A250jkorpelacstutfi (AT) 193 (DOT) 229.0.31

What do you think of using an OBJECT element for the image map, with
equivalent text links forming the OBJECT's content?

Support to OBJECT is still poor

Maybe in some case CSS can be an answer. An exemple here :
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sprites/

But of course, it's usable only for simple image maps - complex ones can't
be recoded using this technique.

"John F. Carr" <jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu> wrote

In article <kristiaan-04FC14.23100503052004 (AT) news1 (DOT) news.xs4all.nl>,
Kris <kristiaan (AT) xs4all (DOT) netherlands> wrote:
In article <4096b3c7$0$567$b45e6eb0 (AT) senator-bedfellow (DOT) mit.edu>,
jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu (John F. Carr) wrote:

How few of them does there have to be, before it
becomes acceptable to trigger seizures?

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.

What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value."

Laura's point may have been to ask what need there is on the part of the
general public for web sites to have flashing bits, that it would outweigh
the accessibility-related reasons not to.

"Harlan Messinger" <hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote

Jukka Korpela mentioned a few months ago that the EU doesn't have
requirements for accessibility, only recommendations. Sorry, I don't
know where to find them.

AFAIK, the EU does not have any standards or even recommendations. [The EU
issues directives that member nations should/must incorporate into their
laws]

Recent changes made to the UK's Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) means
that web accessibility is now *implicitly* covered. When I say implicitly, I
mean there are no guidelines to indicate what determines whether a website
is accessible or not - the law says that businesses are expectly to
undertake 'reasonable steps' to provide access to employment & services to
people with disabilities... such are providing an accessible website, or
providing screen readers and other appropriate tools. However, these
requirements have not yet been tested in the courts, ie have not been
enforced. I think there are a case or two working their way to the courts
soon, but nothing has happened yet.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups....hcsp#P16_2626

Chris

In article <4096cc8b$0$563$b45e6eb0 (AT) senator-bedfellow (DOT) mit.edu>,
jfc (AT) mit (DOT) edu (John F. Carr) wrote:

A few thousand web users likely to suffer seizures could be ignored,
while a 10% minority would be of substantial concern.

What is it that the general populace loses out on when one no longer
uses blinking animations?

The directive was "don't use flashing web pages because they
trigger seizures" not "don't use flashing web pages because
they are annoying and add no value." I've agreed with the
latter since I first encountered the BLINK tag. I even have
a shell script that purges animated GIF files from my netscape
browser cache. (When I use NS4 I turn off automatic image
loading.)

You missed the point.

--
Kris
<kristiaan (AT) xs4all (DOT) netherlands> (nl)
<http://www.cinnamon.nl/>