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 real people that should be concentrating on accessibility are people working on creating browsers and operating systems because they can really do something about it.
Garbage in, garbage out. If you don't structure your content properly, add necessary hooks, and generally show basic awareness of what the problems are and circumvent them, there is no magical pixie-dust-powered technology in the browser or OS that can "accessify" your content.
And, for the last time, can we drop this whole "accessibility = non-JavaScript solution according to WCAG 1" slant? WCAG 2 has been out for over a year now, and that's the yardstick we use. And yes, WCAG 2 allows for scripting, or any other accessibility-supported technologies. But that still means that these technologies need to be used in a responsible and correct way...because that's the "power over what the user sees".
P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
