N
Neredbojias
To further the education of mankind, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
Well, it's like this. I simply don't believe that the onus of making a web
page completely (so-called-)"accessible" rests with the pagemaker. What
there should be is client-side software that is capable of adapting a
"normal" page to compensate for the various deficiencies human beings are
prone to throughout their lives or acquired by accident or birth. The
Opera whole-page zoom feature is a good if nacent example of this.
Sure, some care can and should be taken to allow for the web's natural
advantage at rendering a page in various ways to suit various visitors.
But what is the limit? I've read several of the "official"
useability/accessibility guidelines for web authors, and, to be blunt, they
are a fucking joke. Certain people here promote making a page generally
ipod capable, and that is a joke. Furthermore, I quite agree with Travis
Newbury that "fixed" pages are more appropriate in certain instances. I
don't particularly like them and won't visit "bells-and-bangles" sites, but
that doesn't invalidate the fact.
A normally well-made and valid web page is not debilitated. If _you_ can't
read it, the fault lies at your end.
Why would you want to debilitate web pages when they can remove the
problem? I now have to remove my glasses and hold a book very close
to my eyes in order to read it (and I still read several books per
week). It's not comfortable, and I only do it in bed. Why would you
want to make web pages as difficult to read when the concept makes
them flexible and legible to anyone?
Well, it's like this. I simply don't believe that the onus of making a web
page completely (so-called-)"accessible" rests with the pagemaker. What
there should be is client-side software that is capable of adapting a
"normal" page to compensate for the various deficiencies human beings are
prone to throughout their lives or acquired by accident or birth. The
Opera whole-page zoom feature is a good if nacent example of this.
Sure, some care can and should be taken to allow for the web's natural
advantage at rendering a page in various ways to suit various visitors.
But what is the limit? I've read several of the "official"
useability/accessibility guidelines for web authors, and, to be blunt, they
are a fucking joke. Certain people here promote making a page generally
ipod capable, and that is a joke. Furthermore, I quite agree with Travis
Newbury that "fixed" pages are more appropriate in certain instances. I
don't particularly like them and won't visit "bells-and-bangles" sites, but
that doesn't invalidate the fact.
A normally well-made and valid web page is not debilitated. If _you_ can't
read it, the fault lies at your end.