On Feb 15, 11:46 am, "Rick Faircloth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Internet, even as many forms of media as it employs, simply cannot > be for everyone, as the radio cannot accommodate the deaf and TV cannot > accommodate the blind. The problem is that because it is at its base a stream of text, and because it is a breeding ground for new technologies, the World Wide Web _can_ be accessible to just about everyone. Without special accommodations. Following current best practices (starting with content, then adding style and behavior on top of that) goes a long way toward accessibility. (Also, keep in mind that accessibility isn't only for the benefit of people with disabilities: Having an accessible site is one of the most robust search engine optimization strategies.) Yes, absolute universal accessibility is impossible. There will always be that one guy who is deaf-blind and only speaks an obscure indigenous Indonesian sign language, and the cost of getting the message to him will often far outweigh the benefit. But the things we can do right now with minimal extra effort (and a good deal of foresight) can make the Web one of the most accessible communication platforms around. Oh, and TV can accommodate the blind: http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/pages/mag/services/description/ > And I believe that for people with poor eyesight (and as I age, mine > is getting worse) a "screen magnifier" is a better overall solution than > simple text-enlargement. > > I want and need to be able to view photographs and graphics on the screen, > not just read about them or have them described to me by a screen reader. I think the biggest drawback of screen magnifiers is that they inevitably require horizontal scrolling, which, aside from being annoying as all get out, can make it difficult or impossible to get one's bearings on a Web page. There are pluses and minuses to everything. --Chris
