Yeah I totally agree. I seriously doubt there are architects writing into lists saying "we have to design a building that is beautiful AND accessible"; they just incorporate both into every design.
Web should be the same, it should go without saying that it will be accessible and it should look as beautiful as if it wasn't coded specifically for accessibility. On 1/24/07, Mark Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of the comments on the AIMIA thread seem to indicate that the authors believe accessibility is solely about validation and testing, and that art is only about pretty pictures. I believe that both views are flawed. Accessibility is/should be a way of life for anyone building websites. I don't care to hear the inevitable "but that's the way the client wants it" - does a doctor give a patient morphine for a burst appendix, because that's what the patient wants, for the pain to go away? No. If you consider yourself a web professional, you have a duty (in my view) to point out to the client that an inaccessible website is the wrong thing to do. That doesn't mean it can't look good - isn't that what web standards are about? Creating pages that work for everybody and still satisfy an aesthetic viewpoint? I'm having trouble with the fact that we are even having this debate on such a list :-( regards Mark Harris ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
