| 1 |
Hi Thomas |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
In the last episode, Thomas Wouters wrote: |
| 4 |
TW> On Sunday 01 April 2007, Jeff Rollin wrote: |
| 5 |
TW> > Hi list |
| 6 |
TW> > |
| 7 |
TW> > I like the new look of the website, but how on Earth does anyone make |
| 8 |
any TW> > sense of the links? Purple on black is a really bad idea, and |
| 9 |
that's from TW> > someone who doesn't have any accessibility issues with |
| 10 |
websites. TW> > |
| 11 |
TW> > Should this be filed as a bug? |
| 12 |
TW> > |
| 13 |
TW> > Jeff |
| 14 |
TW> |
| 15 |
TW> This has nothing to do with the accessibility of the website, it inflects |
| 16 |
the TW> usability, which is something completely different. |
| 17 |
TW> What isn't accessible is the layout which is based on tables, changing |
| 18 |
this to TW> div's will increase the accessibility and the opportunity to |
| 19 |
easily create TW> new designs. |
| 20 |
TW> The menus are awfull, I mean, come on, <a> tags separated by pipes? |
| 21 |
Imagine TW> what text to speech software would make from that... What's |
| 22 |
wrong with using TW> <ul> which is basically made for this? |
| 23 |
TW> |
| 24 |
TW> Anyway, if you want to talk about accessibility, the first thing you |
| 25 |
should do TW> is ask yourself the question if you know what accessibility |
| 26 |
is. If the answer TW> to that question is no, then stick with the term |
| 27 |
usability. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
In my opinion this is hair-splitting. To me "accessibility" just means |
| 30 |
"usability for disabled users". Besides, as I already noted, the fact that |
| 31 |
it's bad from a design/usability standpoint is only going to make it worse |
| 32 |
from an accessibility standpoint. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Jeff |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence |
| 37 |
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Richard Phillips Feynman, American physicist, 11/5/18-15/2/88 |
| 40 |
-- |
Archives