miden wrote:
Interesting letter on "The Register" WRT accessiblity:
"...it's very hard to see why the tiny amount of forethought website
authors could show toward accessibility in the very beginning is so
terribly absent."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/02/letters_0202/
And that's really the key point I was trying to make when I started this
thread (which, as Russ pointed out, has morphed considerably).
Too many 'designers' regard accessibility as something you *do* to your
site *after* you've developed its visual glory, with consequent
compromises, and text-based alternatives. It should be, instead, a
factor that influences your design choices from the beginning, sort of
"given these parameters, how do we get the effect we want" which is a
more sensible (and usually cheaper) option. Validate your test models
before polishing and you're more than halfway to creating a site that
satisfies on both criteria.
Incidentally, I understand that the Googlebot can't read flash-based
content, and will generally ignore your metadata. If you're not
accessible to Goggle, you can hardly be said to be on the web.
cheers
mark
(spending time at the Wellington 7's!)
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
