WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Off-left vs. block/none oddity.

for

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Feb 3, 2006 10:00AM

On 2/3/06, Christian Heilmann < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> > > It would help to tell us what you mean by "hack"?
> > Using standard markup and styles to produce something generally
> > desirable in a way which was not specifically intended nor even
> > implied in the specification.

> Ah. Well, if we only went for what is in the specs, and how it is
> meant to be, I could use inline onclicks and onkeypress together and
> have an accessible site. However, that would mean that Firefox users
> would get onkeypress functionality when they tab over the element,
> which is not good. It would also mean that maintainability of the site
> is very much under par. If I followed the 508 to the dot I could even
> use javascript: links, as they "are supported by assistive
> technology".

Now you're straw-manning me here. Did I say that the spec is always
sufficient? No, I defined "hack" for you, because apparently you Have
Never Encountered The Word And Needed It Defined.

(Which, of course, is false -- you know exactly what I meant, and were
feigning ignorance as a rhetorical tactic.)

> You are right though, hiding and showing things is a tempting but
> dangerous toy. I said that some years ago and still mean it.
> http://icant.co.uk/forreview/dynamicelements/

Oh, so you agree with me, but you're still right because your clients
are idiots.

> > It's nice that Web clients want it. Web clients are often idiots,
> > though, and whatever they go apeshit over may not be best practices,
> > unless by "best practices" you mean "any hack to earn a buck."

> Yes, much like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert, and who does the
> business decisions and hires and fires people?

So if your client said "fuck the blindies, I want an inaccessible
site!" you'd make it?

> Yes, I know all that - but have you ever talked to an enterprise
> level client or a client on a fixed price budget [...]

Blah blah blah. Okay, so inaccessibility is fine if the client wants
it. By all means, if you are making money by selling out Web users,
go for it!

You'll be rich!

Don't expect me to automatically respect you, and insulate you from
criticism of poor techniques, though. Just because you've sold out,
that doesn't make you right.

> We will go nowhere if we don't hold back from time to time, step down
> from the soap box and get our hands dirty dealing with real
> development life problems.

*rolls eyes*

> Maybe we should talk
> to the vendors of development frameworks and help them with our
> knowledge to make their out-of-the-box solutions better?

Maybe? Isn't that a given?

> Last year I published an article on why clients don't care about
> accessibility [1] and all of these reasons are the ones we have to
> tackle, not point at the specs or best practices and repeat truths
> that the user is the most important thing.

And your way of tackling it is to bow to the people who pay you.
That's fine for you, but not everyone here is as mercenary, so I don't
understand why you're fighting against people who you admit are
actually right and correct.

You know that what you're promoting -- client appeasement over end
user accessibility and usability -- is wrong. Why are you defending
it?

> You pose a lot of good solutions right now, do you have figures to
> back them up?

Me personally? No.

Should the industry be developing these? Hell, I thought someone was.
What have you people been doing the last few years?

> > You have weird clients.
>