Forum Problems

[EchoMan]

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.

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.

Where do you draw the line?

At following standards and recommendations.

'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.

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.

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.

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".

[returner]

Hey, don't forget.. phpBB is free. They don't make a red cent off this. They have absolutely NO obligation to cater for the blind or otherwise, or follow recommendations.

Otherwise, a wholly good (albeit simple and straight-forward) response. I did find it a little narrow-minded, as it is not always easy to follow up on recommendations when you're limited in time and staff.. and the point I was making, is that in the future there will be more and more people accessing the internet. And a larger minority of people who have different disabilites, whether physical, mental or technological. My question is, do we NEED to cater for every single one of them? If I program something for free, for those who are not visually impaired, do I HAVE to take more time out of my day to cater for even more?

Above all, I ask you to remember one thing: You can't please everyone.

There will always be someone who wants a blind-accessible site.
Then, there will be someone who DOESN'T want the blind accessing the site.

You just can't win.. so pick a majority and stick with 'em, that's my view.

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.

And you just completely misworded what I said. I was referring to not paying a second thought about a 0.02 percent of visitors.
I can either spend 10 hours working on content for 99% of people, or 10 hours working on something which 1 visitor MAY view, and hey - I might not even get that visitor.. (if you can see where I'm coming from)

[EchoMan]

I believe that you don't get the essence of my response which is:

A developer who learn how to code websites after these recommendations, will not spend more time creating the websites. It's about the same amount of time put into coding (assuming at least following HTML specifications), you just do it with these guidelines in mind. And following these guidelines doesn't necessarily mean that the experience of the site is less for "normal" users, just that there are alternatives.

[returner]

I believe that you don't get the essence of my response which is:

A developer who learn how to code websites after these recommendations, will not spend more time creating the websites. It's about the same amount of time put into coding (assuming at least following HTML specifications), you just do it with these guidelines in mind. And following these guidelines doesn't necessarily mean that the experience of the site is less for "normal" users, just that there are alternatives.

True, in a way. You're saying that once a developer knows how to implement it, it won't take them that much longer to program it .... in essence. But you have to admit, coding for the disabled is limiting.

[EchoMan]

I believe that you don't get the essence of my response which is:

A developer who learn how to code websites after these recommendations, will not spend more time creating the websites. It's about the same amount of time put into coding (assuming at least following HTML specifications), you just do it with these guidelines in mind. And following these guidelines doesn't necessarily mean that the experience of the site is less for "normal" users, just that there are alternatives.

True, in a way. You're saying that once a developer knows how to implement it, it won't take them that much longer to program it .... in essence. But you have to admit, coding for the disabled is limiting.

*sighs* I wouldn't know, I have never "coded for the disabled", whatever that means. I have always put professional pride in coding conforming to standards and following a lot of guidelines thogh. And it's not limiting.

[notsure]

I'm having a problem with PMs. I type the name in the box on the left and click add to, but nothing happens.

Edit: NM, I got it.

notsure

[Joshuamonkey]

I'm not a professional web developer. I'm planning to be, but I haven't entered college yet.

Still, I agree with Echoman. Organizations have in-depth analysis of what is considered too much and too little with accessibility. In addition, accessibility is likely to be useful for those who can see also.

There will always be someone who wants a blind-accessible site.
Then, there will be someone who DOESN'T want the blind accessing the site.

You just can't win.. so pick a majority and stick with 'em, that's my view.

Then those who don't want the blind accessing the site have issues...
My view is that it's better to do what is right, not what the majority thinks. The majority moral standards certainly seem to be lacking at times. In this case, however, I would expect the majority to want blind people to be able to use the internet, as long as it doesn't significantly make things worse for themselves. Also, returner, you make a good point with the "it's not for you" idea, and I'd even add that the Cantr staff are volunteers, but the Internet has much more than graphics to offer. There's a ton of information, stories, social interaction (including forums), music, and Cantr. Personally, I think it's worth making websites offering these kinds of services accessible for those who need the extra help, and Cantr in particular.

True, in a way. You're saying that once a developer knows how to implement it, it won't take them that much longer to program it .... in essence. But you have to admit, coding for the disabled is limiting.

If it's truly limiting, then maybe that's where a line can be drawn.

[Dudel]

I like phpBB and am 100% happy with the upgrade.

Only personal issue is I had to change from the annoying green (though I like green this was just an eyesore for some reason) to the original phpBB blue/silver coloration.

Personally, I've color issues with yellow, red, brown, orange and a few that bleed between these... if a site is in these colors I can't (and don't) usually read it. Compatible for a lot of people is that annoying Red on Black but I CAN NOT see anything other then a red tornado over black/gray.

Sometimes sites are just not compatible and/or friendly to/for everyone.

[Joshuamonkey]

I'll try to keep that in mind when I make websites then.

[Doug R.]

A little belated, but please cut the chit-chat. This is a support forum, not a discussion forum.

[Armulus Satchula]

Regardless of the fact, Tiddy's problem has been solved so it doesn't much matter. As Doug said, only problems here please.

[Piscator]

I've got the problem that trying to submit a post takes me back to an empty posting window. This is not much of a problem as I can hit the back button and try again (which usually works), but it's getting mildly annoying.

[Dudel]

I've got the problem that trying to submit a post takes me back to an empty posting window. This is not much of a problem as I can hit the back button and try again (which usually works), but it's getting mildly annoying.

You can solve this problem indirectly by using a browser option that doesn't allow redirects... or at least asks you first.

[Piscator]

I switched that option back on for now, but that isn't exactly a solution. Thanks anyway, if it works.

[Dudel]

I switched that option back on for now, but that isn't exactly a solution. Thanks anyway, if it works.

I did say indirectly. And you are correct that this is not an actual fix so much as a "Well this might help for now."