returner wrote:But at what point do we say enough? How accessible do you want websites to be? What about blind, deaf, mute people who use neuro-transmitters to interpret information? Should all web designers make their websites accessible for them? Armless people who use a special keyboard to navigate? People who don't have enough money to afford broadband, and have to use dialup? Computers that are so old, they can't use Java, Javascript, php, etc - only basic websites?
You couldn't find more extremes, could you? The simple answer is: Follow standards and recommendations when you design websites. If you do all those very inventive gadgets you lined up above, will work. If they too foloow standards and recommendations.
returner wrote:And before you shoot down the 'old computer' argument, there are as many people using very very old computers (ie the elderly who have no need for new ones) as there are blind people using the internet. So maybe we should make websites compatible for them too.
A website that follow standards is most likely accessible with a very old computer too. Maybe not all nifty graphics, flashes, scripts and stuff, but the information and the links should be clearly visible and easily accessible, which is what we are discussing here.
returner wrote:Where do you draw the line?
At following standards and recommendations.
returner wrote:'you haven't done a very good design job'. That's an unfair statement. When I was in web design, I never gave a second thought about those who use neuro-transmitters and the blind who use interpreter programs. And I shouldn't - it's not my target market and I don't expect there to be more than 1 of that kind of viewer every two years, if ever (a damn small number).
I am in web design (well... sorta) and I think it lies in my own interest as a professional developer to follow standards and recommendations, to be able to produce quality products. Found the red thread in my argumentation yet?
If you think you (as a web developer) shouldn't give a second thought about what your potential customers/visitors want or need, you are, in my opinion, not a very professional web developer.
returner wrote:Web content is advancing forward. One day we might see websites which no longer use text, but rather images so that things can be copyrighted better and displayed nicer. We see Flash websites which don't have a lot of readable text, and blind interpretor programs can't pick this up.
This is old already. A lot of information on the web since 10-15 years back (or so, dunno exactly) is in PDF format. PDF is a standard and I believe most readers know how to render PDF's just because of them following standards. I could be wrong about this though. Nevertheless, most information shouldn't be in flash, it is a very bad way of displaying information. It has its uses though, but not very good for displaying information.
returner wrote:Should the rest of the world suffer and be held back because 0.02% (?) of internet users can't access it? No.
Suffer? What are you on about? Noone suffers from developers following standards and recommendations. Some people suffer when they don't.
returner wrote:In conclusion, I'd like to apologise in advance if any blind user misinterprets the point I'm trying to make and takes offense.
....
But when it comes to the point that technology has to be halted or downgraded because a minority we have to support are kicking up a fuss, a line has to be drawn.
I believe you are exaggerating the effects of following standards and recommendations "slightly".