Dotted line around images.....

"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) atthisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>

Accessible for who is my question? This whole accessibility issue soley
consentrates on the visually impaired.

Excuse me but your total lack of knowledge regarding disability issues is
showing.

What about people with learning difficulties, color blindness. Do these
people not count? It's equally
possible to cater for these people and yet no mention. It seems pretty
odd to me?

The whole point of web site accessibility is to, (try to), make the web
accessible for all full stop. Anyone that takes an interest in this subject
is well aware of that and knows about the resources that are available to
aid accessibility; whether the end user be visually impaired, audibly
impaired, limbless or has learning difficulties.

JFTR, I have done some voluntary work teaching Adult Literacy and Numeracy
in an Information and Communications Technology environment. When you say
"It's equally possible to cater for these people and yet no mention", it
brings to mind an old saying; "There are none so deaf as those who do not
wish to hear".

The Asian community in this country would probably find it easier if
websites existed in their language, but most dont. True accessibilty
would take these people into account, but it doesnt.

If the web site is providing a service, and that service is aimed at a
specific community, then that service must be made accessible to that
community. They could even use "positive discrimination" and use just one
language, not necessarily English.

I think that's enough as I am probably banging my head against a wall.

I would just like to add that, as this is a Macromedia forum , DW must be
applauded for its versatility. It lets the developer create the latest
whistles and bells totally inaccessible, (to some), sites and at the other
end of the scale the developer is able to build a site that meets AAA
compliance.
<snip>

Terry

thenovice wrote:

Accessible for who is my question? This whole accessibility issue soley
consentrates on the visually impaired.


Excuse me but your total lack of knowledge regarding disability issues is
showing.

Then you need to elaborate rather than just make a sweeping statement.

The whole point of web site accessibility is to, (try to), make the web
accessible for all full stop.

That's just my point, is, try? How hard are people actually trying to
cater for all when it doesnt suit them? They don't appear to be able to
think outside the box?

My point is disability is not just all about visually impaired people.
It's about more than that. These accessibility crusaders conveniently
like to foget that, why? Because it doesnt suit their particular stance
on the subject. Do they care that their site does not cater for people
with color blindness if it means using a less pleasing color pallete? Do
they care if their site is not accessible to people with word
association difficulties if it means they have to use a limited use or
specific words? I think not. It then begins to become all too much trouble.

Most people, who spout accessibility rhetoric, in this forum and other
forums, have not the slightest clue as to what it means other than
making the text easy to enlarge. They don't care beyond that because
anything more is not a problem which they want to think about.
Accessibility crusaders who only think this are in denial as to what it
really is.



Anyone that takes an interest in this subject

is well aware of that and knows about the resources that are available to
aid accessibility; whether the end user be visually impaired, audibly
impaired, limbless or has learning difficulties.

I absolutely agree. I dont think this subject has been fully understood
by the majority of so called accessibilty 'pushers'.

My stance is, I peraonally have no intention to design for minority
groups if my clients a,b,c demographic figures show that it is not
desirable to do so. What would be the point? A companies research can
only reveal those figures. No outside source should poke their nose in,
without being invited to do so, and tell a company how to run their own
business. What the hell does this outside source know about a specific
companies operations?. I'll tell you. They know a fig fat zero.

JFTR, I have done some voluntary work teaching Adult Literacy and Numeracy
in an Information and Communications Technology environment. When you say
"It's equally possible to cater for these people and yet no mention", it
brings to mind an old saying; "There are none so deaf as those who do not
wish to hear".

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing on that point.

The Asian community in this country would probably find it easier if
websites existed in their language, but most dont. True accessibilty
would take these people into account, but it doesnt.


If the web site is providing a service, and that service is aimed at a
specific community, then that service must be made accessible to that
community. They could even use "positive discrimination" and use just one
language, not necessarily English.

Oh congratulations!!!. You mention the buzz word now "specific". I fully
agree, refer back to my previous answer about a companies a,b,c,
demographic target.

Senario: There is no point in aiming my Motor Vehicle Sales at visually
impaired people.

I think that's enough as I am probably banging my head against a wall.

No, not really, I agree with you. Accessibility concerns a wider issue
than just the visually impaired and yet thats what we only seem to hear
about.

I'm of the viewpoint that not any one specific website can be made
accessible to everyone, just as not every restaurant is going to cater
for everyones taste.

I dont think we should be going down this line its becomes sterile.

"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) atthisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

Most people, who spout accessibility rhetoric, in this forum and other
forums, have not the slightest clue as to what it means >other than making

the text easy to enlarge.

My apologies. I misread a post and included you in the group of people that
think large, bold text is the answer to everything.

Sorry.

Terry

EOF?

Michael Fesser wrote:

color blindness.

Check site in grey scale for enough contrast.

Not good enough. I used to think that converting a page to gray-scale to
check if there was enough contrasts was all I needed to do to make it
accessible to the colorblind. I have since learned that there are
several kinds of colorblindness, and merely providing enough contrast
may not work for some of the types. I had the URL of a website that
would show you your page as it would look to people with the various
types of colorblindness, but I can't find it now. Sorry.

--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com

http://colorfilter.wickline.org/

--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com

"James Shook" <jshook (AT) dont_mail (DOT) com> wrote

<snip>
I had the URL of a website that

would show you your page as it would look to people with the various
types of colorblindness, but I can't find it now. Sorry.

--
James M. Shook
http://www.jshook.com

Was this the one James

http://vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php

Terry

Michael Fesser wrote:

Tell me a reason why not. Maybe he's the boss or the boss wants him to
check car selling websites. What light does an inaccessible website
throw on the company's products? If they hired an incompetent
webdesigner, what about their other employees?

Just to bump in with a general reflexion (and not to you in particular):

It seems to me that many web designers have a bit too close to the
subject to really understand what it's really about. It's as if they
can't see the forest because of the trees and as if accessibility trumps
everything else. It is *not* so. Perhaps because most have not really
been working with marketing, but "happened" to become web designers
simply because they're good with computers...?

There has *always* been and will *always* be a point where you and/or
the client must decide which ones to exclude from any promotion or
marketing communication, be it an ad campaign, DM, a TV commercial, your
website or the every-day PR jobs. Not only due practical and economical
reasons. It is also common that you do that because of sheer strategical
reasons. Examples:

There's a trade fair in Düsseldorf which is perfect for my client, so he
goes there for a week with tons of brochures and stuff. But there's also
a trade fair in Singapore two weeks later that he need to attain. But
there isn't time. That's the same *practical* reason.

If I distribute a brochure by DM to households in region A, I can't
afford the same to people in region B. Tough shit, but I prefer region A
before region B, so the "accessibility" for the latter is nada. That's
an *economical* reason in the same way it is to have a web designer
spend days in order to tweak and bend a website to show up in every
imaginable browser on earth.

I publish an ad in a glossy magazine that has 100.000 subscribers that
sets me back $25.000 (i.e. 40 cents per contact) but won't publish an ad
in the biggest morning paper despite that it has the same 100.000
readers as the magazine *plus* another 5 million and will only cost
50.000 (i.e. less than *one* cent per contact). Why? Because the brand
image of the product requires high quality print and an "environment"
like the magazine. An ad in a morning paper will "smudge" the brand
image. That's a *strategic* reason in the same way many, many websites
*must* have e.g. certain visual design, flash or javascripts and cannot
be made simpler just to be nice to visually impaired, flash-less or
users with javascript turned off. Strategy is not only to *include*
target groups. It is as crucial to *exclude* others.

I am pretty sure that extremely few of the people reading these lines
(and who are self-employed) have installed various aids in case a
disabled person would show up at the doorstep as a prospective client.
Do you have an elevator in case a guy in wheelchair will discuss a
website with you? Are thresholds removed? Is your bathroom designed for
him? Are your business cards printed in Braille version, too?

Or what about languages: Since the Chinese are over a billion, I assume
you have your website in Mandarin and Cantonese, too? Not to mention
Portuguese and Spanish? I'm sure they want to have access, too...

See, we draw lines and make decisions to exclude groups all the time:
"Please all and you will end up pleasing none".

Cheers,

--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact: http://proformica.com/en_gray/contact.shtml
Formmail tutorial: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/formmail_tutorial.shtml
Nested tables: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/nested_table_demo.shtml
SEO: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/search_engine_optimization.shtml
SE Utility: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/advanced_web_ranking.shtml
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup: http://www.proformica.com/google.html

Dan Vendel *GOF* wrote:

There has *always* been and will *always* be a point where you and/or
the client must decide which ones to exclude from any promotion or
marketing communication, be it an ad campaign, DM, a TV commercial, your
website or the every-day PR jobs. Not only due practical and economical
reasons. It is also common that you do that because of sheer strategical
reasons.

Nicely put Dan. Spreading your wings to wide can also mean spreading
your wings too thinly.

Osgood wrote:

Nicely put Dan. Spreading your wings to wide can also mean spreading
your wings too thinly.

Thanks.
Still I didn't mention that it appears as if accessibility bone heads
<g> seems to think that a website is the one and only channel a company
has for its entire marketing communication.
Usually, it's actually the other way around: the website is just a small
part of a company's marketing communication program and *need* to have
the same "look and feel" as the rest of the marketing collateral.

--
Dan Vendel - *GOF*
Contact: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/contact.shtml
Formmail tutorial: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/formmail_tutorial.shtml
Nested tables: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/nested_table_demo.shtml
SEO: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/search_engine_optimization.shtml
SE Utility: http://www.proformica.com/en_gray/advanced_web_ranking.shtml
Search Dreamweaver newsgroup: http://www.proformica.com/google.html

The onus for accessibility, if any, lies with the browser manufacturer.
Mick

Dan Vendel *GOF* wrote:

Osgood wrote:

Nicely put Dan. Spreading your wings to wide can also mean spreading
your wings too thinly.


Thanks.
Still I didn't mention that it appears as if accessibility bone heads
g> seems to think that a website is the one and only channel a company
has for its entire marketing communication.
Usually, it's actually the other way around: the website is just a small
part of a company's marketing communication program and *need* to have
the same "look and feel" as the rest of the marketing collateral.