Don't look on it as "dumbing down". Think of it as the ability to degrade gracefully.
Sure, you can have all the bells and whistles you want to give to your non-disabled clients, just make sure that your site works with a keyboard as well as a mouse. That a screen reader can read your updates using Ajax. Both WCAG and 508 are in the process of updating their requirements. Both groups are taking technology innovations into account. Things aren't as dire as they use to be. ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) is starting to provide a way for Browsers, Screen Readers and other Accessible Technology devices and other programs and technologies (such as Flash and Ajax) to be able to work together to provide the stuff we want to give the 70% of the population that has no problem and still, while not always providing the same user experience to the other 30%, doesn't penalize them for being disabled. Sandra Clark ============= http://www.shayna.com Training and Consulting in CSS and Accessibility Team Fusebox -----Original Message----- From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 3:09 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Accessible (Re: Safari on Windows XP and Vista - Never though I'd see the day.) On 6/14/07, Sandra Clark wrote: > I can tell you that in the accessibility and disability communities, > text-only sites tend to be looked on as a put down. Most disabled users > will not use them. They tend to not be updated as often, they aren't well > tested, etc. > > Also text only in and of itself does not mean accessible. Lots of > disabilities benefit from well placed graphics (cognitive for one). So would offering an "optimized for 56k modems" version, a "bad vision", and a "no vision" version... etc. be worse than... hmm... how to phrase this... You know that "Welcome to the Monkey House" short story called, I think, the Handicapper General? Something like that. - I don't want to hinder folks who can access data unhindered to give hindered folks "the same experience". It's not achievable, right? No matter what, they're "seeing" through some kind of filter. Or else, I'm limiting everyone else, to whatever arbitrary level we decide to lock it down at. I could get close, I mean, but it's sorta that "I want a fighter, a bomber, and a VTOL, all in one airplane." type of deal. At some point, you get more bang for the buck by having specific... eh... I don't see how we can really have the same data that fits on a 1024x 768 screen fit on a 300x400 screen. It just seems to make sense to sorta re-arrange things so they "fit". I like to keep content organized in a DB. So if the content was updated, it would be updated on a "text only" (etc.) version(s) as well. All that said, I like the idea of flexibility in "one thing" too... degradablilty, scalability (in the viewport sense), and whatnot. <random thought>WMLed HTML, neh?</random thought> =-/ Not sure how to convey my meaning without being crass, if I haven't been already. I would like to have everyone have the best. I'm just still working on how to achieve that... was hoping targeted versions were preferred, actually. That would be harder/easier and cooler. Maybe... hmm.... yeah. Full of sense, I know. Thanks a bunch for your input, Sandra, I'd recommend you in a heartbeat. -PS I dig the keyboard stuff in dojo, I need to stop thinking "blind" when I think about accessibility. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236707 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
