WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re[2]: Re[2]: Dayton Art Alternative Descriptions

for

From: Iain Harrison
Date: Nov 9, 2004 12:51AM

Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 1:01:03 AM, susan.rgrossman wrote:

> I use "Skip to Main Content" link now after reading the recent
> articles about the "semantics" fo the terms we genearlly use in these.

On the other hand, it's one more word, and adds no significant
additional meaning. My view is that not all accessibility is
desirable: you have to define your target audience.

There is a baseline level of understanding and comprehension ability
we can reasonably expect from the users of mainstream public web
sites can reasonably expect of their users.

If a line is not drawn, we're on a slippery slope towards
dumbed-down sites that pander to all and satisfy none. Of course
there is a market for web sites for people with learning
difficulties, but that's not who this web site is for.

What do you and others think of that approach?

> i always makw the links visible to all users (not tiny) beasue I fell
> they have value to all users and that it re-inforces to users that the
> web is for all.

To be honest, I'm not keen to make such statements on a site where
the client has made no specific request for an accessible site.
There's nothing wrong with an evangelical approach towards
accessibility, but I'm not sure it's appropriate to use paying
clients' web sites to promote it.

I'm in the UK, where pedestrian crossings over the road used to have
beepers, but now have tiny, very subtle tactile alerts for visually
handicapped people. They are not apparent to 99% of the public, work
for deaf-blind people as well, and are a success. But a sighted user
would not see them (or hear them).

Something similar for web sites seems like a good approach, except
for the cause of publicising our "accessible web" design and
development skills.


--

Iain