David Tolpin wrote:
> With accessibility for visually impaired, the situation is similar. One
> is to make the design so simple that the
> only side that benefits is authors of bad screen readers. Another one is
> to make screen readers understand
> JavaScript and provide alternative means for navigation. With the first
> approach, the majority suffers, including
> the blinds: they can't access most sites, because not all sites are
> careful enough to provide content for bad
> screen reading programs. With the second approach, everyone wins,
> because it allows most people to access
> most sites in the most pleasant way, and boosts software development and
> advances in information science.
I couldn't disagree more. Proper accessibility design improves sites for
everyone, both sighted and not; and this is as true in web site design
as everywhere else. Simpler sites work better. The only people who lose
out by moving to simpler, JavaScript/Flash/Java free sites are the
designer weenies who don't get to play with the latest cool toys and
charge ten times as much for doing so.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
