> Paul, I agree that good web sites need to do things like display
> material in columns. Many text browsers do well with columns, e.g. W3
> and Lynx.
But can I assume that? If not, then the problem hasn't gone away. If I can
make that assumption, it's news to me. Perhaps there needs to be a source
listing exactly what can be assumed.
> No one is disputing the fact that visual effects do make a difference
> for the majority of web users. However, consider this when you start
> blaming all your woes on the needs of the blind.
Never did. I've got lots of problems that have nothing to do with the
blind.
> There is a new and
> fast growing cadre of companies who are doing either phone web
> browsing technology and/or cell phone web browsing.
This actually raises an issue that's really outside of the charter of this
group. The traditional goal of the web is that everybody should be able to
read everything from every web agent. But that does that really make sense
with these new devices? Somebody may want to check the weather, get a movie
time, or even read their email from one of these, but do they really want to
browser the online manual for their printer from one of these? There's some
information that isn't worth squeezing through a pipe that small. The nice
thing about the web is that you can put a lot of information up quickly and
cheaply. If I've got to massage it so that it makes sense in a mini-display
it may not be worth putting up at all.
> Also consider that folks in developing countries do not have the
> latest and greatest tech.
Again, this gets into the issue of who we see as our audience and how much
effort should we have to put in making our material available to people we
aren't particularly interested in serving anyway? When I was a UNIX manager
I put up a lot information that was specific to the UNIX system here at
Amherst College. I know it was referenced by other but quite frankly that
was of no real interest to me. In fact I use to regularly get email from
people who couldn't figure out why the command I had written here didn't
work on their systems. There wasn't any reason anybody would want to access
if from a cell phone. And while it might have been nice for a perspective
student to see it, it probably wasn't going to make or break their decision
to apply.
> Many people prefer low graphics or no
> graphic sites simply because they can get to the info they need
> faster.
>
I do that myself from home where I have a modem connection.
> Therefore, I think we need to think in terms of universal access.
> Build web sites for all. I think a good web designer can design a
> tool that is not only functional but beautiful as well.
This assumes that your have a good web designer :-)
In practical terms, this college had over 70,000 pages up before we hired a
designer. How did we do it? Well, most were student pages. Some were done
by faculty and departments, usually with hired or volunteer student help.
We now have a designer in the public affairs office, but the reality is that
99 percent of the pages on the Amherst College server will never be
professionally designed.
My job is to advise the faculty in the use of technology in their teaching.
I believe that part of that mandate involves educating faculty, and their
student employees, on issues of accessibility. But if I were to suggest
that they should design their pages so somebody in Sri Lanka can read it
from a cell phone I will lose all credibility. Instead we'll get class
pages being designed for the people in class which in general means no
accessibility at all, which in turn discourages disabled students from
coming here in the first place and thereby reinforcing the impression in the
faculty that accessibility is not a significant issue. This can especially
be a problem with student designers who view these pages as learning
experiences, i.e., a chance to try the latest whiz bank gimmick and are not
generally into thinking about non-immediate issues such as accessibility.
|
