Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

: > >>> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org >>> [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >>> On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart >>> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM >>> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >>> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not m

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 2010/01/31 22:40 (GMT) Jason Grant composed: > @Thierry [...] > However I still feel that your examples are far fetched (i.e. unlikely). I don't, but I do think you're doing your best to rationalize compounding the difficulties that result from real-life accidents and disabilities, be they lar

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Jason Grant > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:24 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > > @Thierry > Why does Google not care abou

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! ADMIN - THREAD CLOSED

This discussion has been at times interesting (where there was healthy exchange of info) and worrying (when personal criticisms were used instead of calm discussions). However, it looks like this thread has reached a point where we not gaining anything - just expressing disagreement. So,

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

@Patrick You seem to be very 'touched' by these genuine remarks I am making. You should not jump to a (very wrong) conclusion that I don't know much about accessibility. I am very comfortable within the area having worked on making a major e-commerce site fully Web2.0 and AAA accessible and knowing

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Please let this be the final word... A On Jan 31, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Even large corporat

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 01/02/2010 00:24, Jason Grant wrote: @Thierry Why does Google not care about accessibility? Do they believe in 'Accessibility does not matter!' (rather than with ? at the end). Even large corporations can be as misguided as you, Jason. Isn't their behaviour the same as Microsoft's with reg

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 31/01/2010 23:23, Andrew Stewart wrote: My point about OS/browsers is that they can easily adjust the colours displayed to the screen for the whole operating system, which makes the whole computer more useable by colour blind users. Which is a much better solution than spending hours removing

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

x27; now, or do we need to continue > down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Thierry Koblentz > wrote: >>> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM >>> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >>> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessib

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

ontinue down the 'Alice in Wonderland' route? On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM >> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! >> >> Sorry to ask agai

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 31/01/2010 23:46, Andrew Stewart wrote: Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? Step one: make the flash itself keyboard accessible http://www.google.com/search?q=flash+keyboard+access Kbd users can then tab from

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 3:46 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > > Sorry to ask again, but please explain how the site could be made accessible whilst maintaining the same ease of use? The same ease of use?! Drop the mo

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

, 2010 2:51 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud I'm sorry, but this is a piece of garbage. They are removing "outline" on real links, but they leave it on elements that don't trigger any b

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Andrew Stewart > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:51 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > > Accessibility does matter, but I do thin

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

My point about OS/browsers is that they can easily adjust the colours displayed to the screen for the whole operating system, which makes the whole computer more useable by colour blind users. Which is a much better solution than spending hours removing reds/greens etc from your site becaus

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 31/01/2010 21:05, Jason Grant wrote: Now for us to say that a solution costing £26M to develop, should have another £1M invested into accessibility (testing, implementing, etc.) is a bit of a far fetched argument to be honest. The way the given PLC looks at it is that 'we just won't employ dis

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> -Original Message- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Jason Grant > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 2:40 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > > @Th

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 31/01/2010 22:50, Andrew Stewart wrote: Whilst I think there are some silly impenetrable sites on the internet, I don't think web developers should really be that concerned with accessibility - not because it isn't worth it, but because we have hardly any power over what the user sees. The rea

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Nice comment Andy. I look forward to people's views on your specific and very good examples. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Andrew Stewart wrote: > Accessibility does matter, but I do think that many people on this list do > get too close to the "accessibility at all cost" point of view. > > L

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Accessibility does matter, but I do think that many people on this list do get too close to the "accessibility at all cost" point of view. Lets take the example of google finance http://www.google.com/finance?q=gbpaud quite a cool site using flash and js to navigate quite a large amount of

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

o be honest. On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >> On Behalf Of Jason Grant >> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:06 PM >> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >> Subject: Re: [WS

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Jason Grant > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 1:06 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > > @Matthew Pennell > You are confused with

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

@Dani Well observed. I am using WordPress presets here. Not had much time 'proving' my accessibility skills on Semantix Blog, however feel free to find such issues on Flexewebs.com. @Peter Mount I am not saying 'Accessibility does not matter!', I was asking a question rather. I don't have an argum

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Jason Grant wrote: > @Thierry > I don't see how breaking a wrist has much to do with accessibility? > Broken wrist = inability to use a mouse. If your site/intranet/app is not keyboard-accessible, how is that person supposed to use it? Now you've exposed your na

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

I whole heartily agree with you Tee, and more importantly with Tim Berners-Lee, the Internet as a whole was invited for the people to share information, and how can information be shared if accessibility is limited, even on intranet's if the system is built from the beginning to be widely acces

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Accessibility is: 1% of equality [1] + 99% of empathy :) Internet is invented by the West, Web-standards movement was originated in the West, all those corporates that make software, have a big influence and dominated the market (Microsoft, Freedom Scientific, Adobe...) are all from the West.

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

>>> >>> My argument is that 'high selective accessibility' is better than >>> 'regular universal accessibility' if that sum-up makes any sense. >>> >>> This is all driven by the nature of highly varied user agents on the >>

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Jason, I can not accept that underline text on your post is not a clickable link. Your W3C and WCAG words did not have its abbreviation. And the option at the bottom of submit button is not in a logical order, I think. :) -- Regards, Dani Iswara http://daniiswara.net/ *

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

no means against as high accessibility as possible, but I >> think that evaluation of 'high accessibility' needs to be approached >> from a clever, business angle. >> >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz >> wrote: >>>> From: li

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz > wrote: >>> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >>> On Behalf Of Jason Grant >>> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM >>> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >>> Subject:

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

31, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Thierry Koblentz wrote: >> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >> On Behalf Of Jason Grant >> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM >> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >> Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Jason Grant > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:14 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! >>> So, what are you getting at? Yes,

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Jason, I would not feel comfortable working for a client with such disregard for accessibility. To extend your argument if the client asks me to break the law does that make it OK? There is a real business need to have even intranet systems that are accessible. As for your assertion in the fol

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! - ADMIN

ADMIN This discussion is quickly deteriorating into name calling, finger pointing, etc. Please return to the discussion, and be respectful of each other - regardless of your differences of opinion. Thanks Russ *** List Gui

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: > @Chris F. A. Johnson > Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still > accessible with larger font size. But even that is unnecessary; there's no good reason not to have it look good for everyone. > How do you propose overc

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: > @Chris > I couldn't resist this Sir. > Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/ > Uses two tables on the front page. > The first should be a and both are missing section. Poor > accessibility. I agree. That's a very old page that I haven't yet got aro

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

@Chris I couldn't resist this Sir. Your site: http://chess.cfajohnson.com/ Uses two tables on the front page. The first should be a and both are missing section. Poor accessibility. It's also an unusual practice to be putting inline images into an , but at the very top you have construct going o

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

@Chris F. A. Johnson Once again, the site only looks rubbish for most part and is still accessible with larger font size. How do you propose overcoming this issue with fixed width layouts. I don't want my site to look rubbish like your for 98% of my users. Also with CSS switched off the site's cont

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010, Jason Grant wrote: > Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. ... > @Chris F.A. Johnson That page is accessible, it just looks shit in the > browser you tested in (whatever you have used there - would have nice > to have test environment details). The only e

RE: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

> On Behalf Of Patrick H. Lauke > Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 10:22 AM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter! > > @Oliver Boermans IE6 / Intranets reply. Today we make a decision to > > use JQuery as a framework for AJAX/JS.

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 30/01/2010 16:57, Jason Grant wrote: @Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a UXD working on 12 million target user Government portal the only thing I can try and be is broad, emphatic and deep, but I also develop apps in my own spare time and have a wife and child to feed

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Good afternoon Jason, It was foretold that on 30/01/2010 @ 16:57:27 GMT+ (which was 14:57:27 where I live) Jason Grant would write: JG> @Luc Glad we agree. ;-) Just to make myself clear: i don't agree with your point of view: the quoted text was to illustrate the motive that o

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Thanks to people who have commented via blog and email. If nothing else I think I have sparked up a healthy debate about accessibility whether I am right or wrong. I will try and reply directly to remarks made by various individuals: @Paul Novitski Harsh wording Sir. That's all I can say. As a U

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

I also agree with this, and I have a problem with someone whose view on accessibility seems to focus on the technologies, not the people using those technologies. I have a modern browser (Firefox 3.5) with full support for Javascript, Flash, etc. I also have disabilities which make it very di

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 30/01/2010, at 11:04 AM, Peter Mount wrote: Even with closed systems like intranets you're "playing with fire" if you don't have regard for accessibility. Agreed. Web applications built ‘for' closed intranets are the reason so many corporates still have IE6 installed. There are perfectl

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 30/01/10 3:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: > Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog > itself. > > http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/ Let's see - how to put this? Ah: "Bottom line? You are wrong." ~mark *

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Nor, apparently, does a page which works: . -- Chris F.A. Johnson === Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solu

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

After reading the article myself I agree Jason is wrong. Even with closed systems like intranets you're "playing with fire" if you don't have regard for accessibility. I haven't been posting to this list very much lately but I just had to say something about this. Peter Mount Web Developm

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Also posted on your blog: "When accessibility matters: There are clear circumstances within which accessibility is incredibly relevant and should be implemented by all means possible. A company cares about their users, wanting to ensure a wide as possible accessibility in order to avoid

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote: I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake of accessibility'. My point is that we are heading towar

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

On 29/01/2010 14:09, Jason Grant wrote: I was going to post a big debate on 'Why accessibility doesn't matter' to this list, but have delegated it to a blog post on the similar subject instead. I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type discussion on this list, but at the same

Re: [WSG] Accessibility does not matter!

Not a bad read. I'm about halfway in between your view and "accessibility all the time". I do agree that there is a lot of accessibility for the sake of accessibility, however, there are also lots of things that are so easy to do that they should always be done, even if your target market doe