[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] http://docbook.sourceforge.net/ problem
Hi, > But I will concede that I hadn't considered the case of how a user > without a mouse is meant to navigate through it. DaveP is correctly pointing to the accessibility issue; but I don't think that to adjust design to the needs of visually-inpaired and without a mouse is a right approach. Those who don't know English but interested in DocBook will still won't be able to read the page. There are more people who don't know English but use computers with mice and visual displays than those who do but use screen readers. One solution would be to provide the page content in all languages, for the sake of accessibility. Another one would be to set up computer translators capable enough to translate the text into the user's language. With accessibility for visually impaired, the situation is similar. One is to make the design so simple that the only side that benefits is authors of bad screen readers. Another one is to make screen readers understand JavaScript and provide alternative means for navigation. With the first approach, the majority suffers, including the blinds: they can't access most sites, because not all sites are careful enough to provide content for bad screen reading programs. With the second approach, everyone wins, because it allows most people to access most sites in the most pleasant way, and boosts software development and advances in information science. Current accessibility tools are bad, and it is possible to make than better. I believe that the way to accessibility for everyone is making tools better, not trimming down the design. > But there will be a lot more websites and "web apps" moving to > relying on Javascript and Ajax behavior -- drag and drop, multiple > windows, interactive features -- that will not degrade gracefully > in such a way This is a separate issue. rico is a good tool by intent for cases when one needs to use dynamic interfaces on a web page. It is not so good by implementation because it fails to work consistently in different browsers. But using JavaScript-based dynamic interfaces with drag-n-drop/multiple windows/interactive features is only justified when a simple point-and-go/single view is single page/static text approach does not work. Much in the same way as dynamic gifs and running status lines were fashionable in mid-nineties, JavaScript and interface effects are popular now just because it finally almost works and designers are hungry to use all of it in every next page. This fashion will hopefully pass soon, and most pages will return to simple and useful design; while AJAX will be used for pages which are not just pages but complex application with web browser interfaces. David
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]