28 Apr
2005
28 Apr
'05
6:48 p.m.
At Thursday 2005-04-28 08:06, you wrote:
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>>At Wednesday 2005-04-27 19:36, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>[deleted...not because it's irrelevant, it's NOT, but because it would
>>obscure what I find myself compelled to say]
>
>You tend to have an interesting urge to say things ;-)
>
>>>As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to
>>>accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost
>>>completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough flexibility
>>>to make the majority of users happy.
>>In this case "majority of the users happy" won't cut it.
>>You're entirely ignoring many of the visually impaired and that's
>>unacceptable.
>>There's a _reason_ that browsers allow users to display things in
>>differing manners. so pick one of the following
>>1) I don't give a damn about the visually impaired (very unlikely)
>>2) I do, but not enough to do anything "extra" because of them (probably
>>unlikely also)
>>3) I didn't even _think_ about the visually impaired in regard to this
>>(most likely)
>
>Interesting how you _assumed_ that I did *not* pick a fourth option of:
>
>4) I though about the visually impaired a great deal and took additional
>steps to make sure that they have a variety of avenues for reading the page..
>4.a) I made sure the page followed a good reading structure so that if
>a blind person is using a reader device the page will read cohesively.
>4.b) I made sure that tab order navigation was correct so that not only
>the visually impaired, but the dexterity impaired can navigate without
>problems.
>4.c) I stayed away from using HTML structural elements, like tables, for
>visual layout as that would intrude in the ability for the impaired to
>change the way the page looks.
>4.d) I tested the page as it would look and function in text only mode.
>4.e) I tested the page as it would look and function if all the colors and
>images are overridden with user settings.
>4.f) I tested the page with some of the WAI accessibility test harnesses
>available.
>4.g) I tested the page at various zoom levels to make sure it was still
>functional.
>...and more..
>
>So the question is did _you_ care enough about the impaired to check the
>functionality of the page for the visually impaired before you posted your
>reply?
>
>[cut, not because it's not interesting, but because it's not really relevant]
>
>>Making the boost webpage inaccessible without jumping through hoops,
>>doesn't qualify, IMO.
>
>Did you investigate what hoops a visually impaired person would need to
>use? Are you so sure that there are hoops? Are you sure that it's not the
>same hoops they already use to browse the rest of the web, and hence are
>no longer hoops?
Nope. I, fortunately, am _not_ vision impaired (the motor vehicle
department feels differently and insists I were glasses while I drive) and
have worked with a few who are over the years. I was relaying (in much
milder language) a conversation (monolog) I had with one of them a few (3?)
years back and changing the way links looked was one of his pet
peeves. Our web designers (the company product was primarily web-based
access to our data) had him and the other visually impaired employees
review any changes. We've both since gone our separate ways, I haven't
seen him since about a month after we both got laid off and lost track of
him after we moved.
>--
>-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
>-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
>-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
>-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"