Forum Moderators: not2easy
Now call me silly but can't same the same functionality, that being to deliver a plain text, easily read page be delivered using CSS at a saving of $thousands per year?
A pure accessible website is best, and LIFT (the application mentioned above) is second best but at least it's better than a non-accessible site.
Finally - text readers creating ASCII pics? Wicked! :)
a) switch styles off?
b) use their own stylesheet?
Where's the need for all this LIFT hocus-pocus?
If visitors need a more accessible webpage why don't they:a) switch styles off?
b) use their own stylesheet?
Because a styleless page can be less accessible than a non-accessible one. For instance, disabling styles doesn't make navigation any easier if you need Access Keys.
Using a user stylesheet has it's own problems, I think, namely that you'd have to be a web designer in your own right to do a decent job at writing one.
And last, no amount of style deactivation or user styling is going to make a table-based design deliver information in a logical order to a screen reader, if the table-based design contains, as many do, source code that seperates related information.
All of these things are the responsibility of the designer/company because only we/they really have any control over them.
I tend to think in terms of font size, colour contrast and screen readers when I consider accessibility - I guess the term covers more than just those issues.
I don't have much sympathy left for companies who still deploy designs with table-based layouts. They've had five years to "get it" and even taking browser-lag into account, lots of people are now using sufficiently modern browsers that CSS-P works.
lots of people are now using sufficiently modern browsers that CSS-P works.
Absolutely. And even if people are still using version 4 browsers, then they at least have the option to upgrade. A blind user can't "upgrade" themselves to a sighted user. I'd rather support a screen reader than Netscape 4.
