[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thursday 28 April 2005 8:22 pm, John Palmer wrote:
OK, what I've learned is that dreamweaver is better than frontpage : and I shall continue to do exactly what Neil Williams said :Vi (well, actually vim) :-)backed up with w3c validation and a perl script to test links. Supplementarily, may I ask : (1) seriously, what browsers do visually-impaired users have, or prefer ?
Not many are available to ordinary users - they may rely on specialised hardware like voice synthesisers and braille output. Generally, if you site is usable in Lynx (the text-only browser), a text-to-speech user will find it significantly easier than any other website out there. Read the W3C accessibility guidelines - accessibility is far less precise than validity, it cannot be tested automatically. There are guidelines and principles (like putting content blocks above navigation blocks in the structure of the file and using internal links to skip sections) but it simply means making your site valid and considering the needs of those who cannot differentiate colour or cannot interpret text rendered as images. If you ensure that every image has a *descriptive* alt tag that is actually relevant and useful, if you ensure that the site can be navigated with all images turned *OFF* and if you allow those without access to a mouse to skip easily between sections without waiting for a text-to-speech browser to render 20 lines of introduction that the user heard last time, you are getting the idea.
(2) only a little less so, is there an organisation for those who hate browser-sniffers ?
anybrowser.org http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.dcglug.org.uk/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp00050.pgp
Description: PGP signature