WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: Movement in pages

for

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: May 2, 2002 5:07AM

While I am in agreement with the basic thread of this answer (small
decorative is OK, large obtrusive or more importantly MISSION CRITICAL not
OK), I would caution developers on Marks statement about Guidelines.

Increasingly, the W3 Guidelines are being adopted by governments and
organizations as Standards... checkpoints which MUST be adhered to. In
Canada, the Federal Government's Common Look and Feel Standards have applied
the weight of mandated standard to the WAI Priority 1 and 2 Checkpoints ;
the European Union is moving in this direction as well, and countries such
as Australia are modifying and adopting the basic thrust of these guidelines
as law.

Canada: http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/clf-upe/index_e.asp
E.U.:
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/citizens/accessibility/index
_en.htm
Australia:
http://www.govonline.gov.au/projects/standards/accessibility.htm


In these instances, interpretation becomes more problematic... one person's
minor transgression may be another's grounds for legal challenge. That may
seem drastic, but the world is full of many people with different agendas.
Unfortunately, in this regard some of the W3C guidelines are vague in their
definition, and often the policy makers (who shoehorn guidelines into
standards) are unaware of these vagaries. This is one of them (also,
defining "blink" (Priority 2 - 7.2) - section 508 caught this one and set
the flash rate (between 2Hz - 55Hz), but what about Section 508 - p; the
timed response. What is "sufficient time"?)

I would suggest then that the final answer lies in the area of judgement
call... who is your site targeted to, and who is it being developed for. If
you are delivering a new or revised site to a private company or individual,
and this is the first foray into accessible design, chances are that any and
all improvements will offset minor issues. If however you are developing
for a government or other public institution (schools/universities, etc.),
then perhaps avoiding this content entirely may prove more prudent. Frank
does not mention how and where his Flash bit is being used, so it's hard to
say what it's final impact may be, but personally, I would probably proceed
with a bit more caution.

As always, JMHO

JF



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Bryant [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
> Sent: May 1, 2002 1:14 PM
> To: <EMAIL REMOVED>
> Subject: RE: Movement in pages
>
>
> Frank,
>
> When looking at your pages and the accessibility of such, I would
> recommend
> sticking to a set of guidelines that meets your orgainization's and
> audience's needs. You have Section 508, W3C-WAI, IBM, and other
> guidelines
> available to choose from, yet they might be contradictive. As this case
> with Macromedia vs WAI. I wouldn't read too much into some of the
> guidelines, because that is what they are, just guidelines. Even when you
> check pages with different HTML validators, you typically get different
> results.
>
> If your flash is purely decorative and the page and is
> insignificant as far
> as content, I would see no problem with keeping it. I would,
> however, keep
> in mind the flicking and the potential cause for triggering seizures.
>
> -mark
>


----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/