Re: [docbook] http://docbook.sourceforge.net/ problem

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 06:42 -0500, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> David Tolpin wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more. Proper accessibility design improves sites for 
> everyone, both sighted and not; and this is as true in web site design 
> as everywhere else. Simpler sites work better. The only people who lose 
> out by moving to simpler, JavaScript/Flash/Java free sites are the 
> designer weenies who don't get to play with the latest cool toys and 
> charge ten times as much for doing so.

No, I don't think you do (disagree that is) Elliotte.
As you say, good design is usually applicable and accessible. 
I don't think David T would disagree with that.

Well designed web pages can include javascript, usefully. 
That won't always reduce accessibility.


WAI are currently doing work on improving accessibility of DHTML,
though it relies as usual on the authors.

regards DaveP