timeless wrote:
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ultimately, a user agent or user can always reject
presentational fluff.
designing a user interface to enable users to tell their user agent to
ignore such "content" ends up being more complicated and problematic
than supporting the feature.
for people w/ limited abilities, needing to spend any realestate or
access option to disable a feature which will most often be abused and
explain to users how and when and why to disable or enable it is
expensive.
Are you essentially saying it requires (expensive) user effort to
disable features that interfere with their consumption of content or
their use of an application? This is true, but it's not a particularly
persuasive argument given just how many features in the web stack can
cause people problems.
Consider how frequently visual CSS is "abused", when the category of
"abuse" includes accidentally making things harder to use for people
with certain disabilities. I think you'll find such "abuse" is somewhere
between commonplace and endemic, e.g. disabling of the focus ring for
aesthetic reasons, hiding of focusable content, CSS image replacement
hacks, tiny text, poor color contrast, unusual widget styling, "pure
CSS" dropdown menus that only work with the mouse, use of styling as a
substitute for media-independent markup, etc. (That's not an argument
that such practices are okay; it's just to observe that they aren't
generally taken as a knockdown argument against supporting visual CSS.)
And, as it happens, many popular user agents do, in fact, give people a
reasonably simple UI for rejecting publisher styles (Opera and Firefox
among them).
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
