<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Accessibility is so &#8216;05</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/</link>
	<description>Web development and Internet trends</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:19:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Nyman</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4137</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Nyman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4137</guid>
		<description>Marco,

Yes, that is at least the way I see it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marco,</p>
<p>Yes, that is at least the way I see it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4134</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4134</guid>
		<description>I guess we all agree. If it&#039;s trivial we should take care of it. If we&#039;re dealing with ultra-advanced web applications packed with AJAX it&#039;s just not a viable option anymore. The whole experience would be ruined without the Javascript.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess we all agree. If it&#8217;s trivial we should take care of it. If we&#8217;re dealing with ultra-advanced web applications packed with AJAX it&#8217;s just not a viable option anymore. The whole experience would be ruined without the Javascript.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Nyman</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4131</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Nyman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4131</guid>
		<description>Chris,

Cool, then we agree. :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris,</p>
<p>Cool, then we agree. <img src='http://robertnyman.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4130</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4130</guid>
		<description>Robert,
&lt;blockquote&gt;
Personally, I believe it takes small means to make a lot of currently JavaScript-dependant features on many web sites today accessible without JavaScript.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
That&#039;s absolutely right. When I wrote about target-audience I did not mean that one has to depend on JS wantonly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert,</p>
<blockquote><p>
Personally, I believe it takes small means to make a lot of currently JavaScript-dependant features on many web sites today accessible without JavaScript.
</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s absolutely right. When I wrote about target-audience I did not mean that one has to depend on JS wantonly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Nyman</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4123</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Nyman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:17:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4123</guid>
		<description>Steve,

Well, then we disagree abotu legislation for private business. I hope it won&#039;t become necessary, and if it does, I really wonder how the laws will be balanced...

Chris,

&lt;blockquote&gt;...but also the designers and conceptionists.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I agree, that&#039;s why I&#039;ve always wanted the interface developer to become involved in the process as early as possible to have such discussions with the designers and concept makers. However, in the end, I do belive it mostly comes down to what way one chooses to implement a design or certain features.

Chris, Marco,

Well, that&#039;s the question, isn&#039;t it? Where do we draw the line, does everyting have to be accessible in some way with JavaScript disabled?

Personally, I believe it takes small means to make a lot of currently JavaScript-dependant features on many web sites today accessible without JavaScript.

But also, I definitely agree that there are web sites/web-based applications that are just too complex, where there&#039;s no way to mimick the experience in a good way for non-JavaScript users; for instance, web applications like Web operating systems.

In the end, I think it&#039;s all about functionality, target audience and what one wants to achieve.


Joe,

I missed your post about that; valid points. I agree that not all features on a web site will have to work with JavaScript. However, in Flickr&#039;s case one should get a message in the slideshow page or alternatively not be able to get there.

Just a black rectangle doesn&#039;t cut it for me.

Jeroen,

I&#039;m glad that you share my point of view.

I also agree about Flickr and Google Maps: a fallback in those cases wouldn&#039;t be that hard.

Jules,

Absolutely, valid point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>Well, then we disagree abotu legislation for private business. I hope it won&#8217;t become necessary, and if it does, I really wonder how the laws will be balanced&#8230;</p>
<p>Chris,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;but also the designers and conceptionists.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree, that&#8217;s why I&#8217;ve always wanted the interface developer to become involved in the process as early as possible to have such discussions with the designers and concept makers. However, in the end, I do belive it mostly comes down to what way one chooses to implement a design or certain features.</p>
<p>Chris, Marco,</p>
<p>Well, that&#8217;s the question, isn&#8217;t it? Where do we draw the line, does everyting have to be accessible in some way with JavaScript disabled?</p>
<p>Personally, I believe it takes small means to make a lot of currently JavaScript-dependant features on many web sites today accessible without JavaScript.</p>
<p>But also, I definitely agree that there are web sites/web-based applications that are just too complex, where there&#8217;s no way to mimick the experience in a good way for non-JavaScript users; for instance, web applications like Web operating systems.</p>
<p>In the end, I think it&#8217;s all about functionality, target audience and what one wants to achieve.</p>
<p>Joe,</p>
<p>I missed your post about that; valid points. I agree that not all features on a web site will have to work with JavaScript. However, in Flickr&#8217;s case one should get a message in the slideshow page or alternatively not be able to get there.</p>
<p>Just a black rectangle doesn&#8217;t cut it for me.</p>
<p>Jeroen,</p>
<p>I&#8217;m glad that you share my point of view.</p>
<p>I also agree about Flickr and Google Maps: a fallback in those cases wouldn&#8217;t be that hard.</p>
<p>Jules,</p>
<p>Absolutely, valid point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jules</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4110</link>
		<dc:creator>Jules</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4110</guid>
		<description>Accessibility and JavaScript is not simply a matter of turning off JavaScript and ensuring that the site works, it also has to be accessible with JavaScript enabled. I have heard that, in the common combination of JAWS and IE, JavaScript is enabled which means that the JavaScript functionality must be accessible.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Accessibility and JavaScript is not simply a matter of turning off JavaScript and ensuring that the site works, it also has to be accessible with JavaScript enabled. I have heard that, in the common combination of JAWS and IE, JavaScript is enabled which means that the JavaScript functionality must be accessible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4103</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:56:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4103</guid>
		<description>Chris&gt; Then I guess we agree ;)
But Robert suggested in this article that requiring JS is always a bad thing :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris&gt; Then I guess we agree <img src='http://robertnyman.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
But Robert suggested in this article that requiring JS is always a bad thing <img src='http://robertnyman.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4102</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4102</guid>
		<description>@Marco: I didn&#039;t want to say that &lt;strong&gt;requiring&lt;/strong&gt; Javascript is always wrong. It depends on your target audience. And so it&#039;s OK for flickr to require JS.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Marco: I didn&#8217;t want to say that <strong>requiring</strong> Javascript is always wrong. It depends on your target audience. And so it&#8217;s OK for flickr to require JS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeroen Mulder</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4101</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeroen Mulder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:33:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4101</guid>
		<description>Interesting post with an even more interesting title ;-)

I share your views regarding legislation for commercial companies and private institutions. If it&#039;s not part of their original case, then it would be unfair to force them to comply to the extreme. However, because the government needs to serve every citizen, I do think it is important that the government is forced to pay attention to it. 

Just having read Joe Clark&#039;s comment -- I find it odd that such cases pass. Looking at the Flickr and Google examples, how hard is it to be provide a proper fallback to the visitor helping them to get back on the road? Surely it doesn&#039;t mean that optional functionality is any less important in terms of accessibility? While optional functionality do not directly contribute to a visitor&#039;s primary goals, I find it rather rude that they&#039;re allowed to fail so badly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post with an even more interesting title <img src='http://robertnyman.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I share your views regarding legislation for commercial companies and private institutions. If it&#8217;s not part of their original case, then it would be unfair to force them to comply to the extreme. However, because the government needs to serve every citizen, I do think it is important that the government is forced to pay attention to it. </p>
<p>Just having read Joe Clark&#8217;s comment &#8212; I find it odd that such cases pass. Looking at the Flickr and Google examples, how hard is it to be provide a proper fallback to the visitor helping them to get back on the road? Surely it doesn&#8217;t mean that optional functionality is any less important in terms of accessibility? While optional functionality do not directly contribute to a visitor&#8217;s primary goals, I find it rather rude that they&#8217;re allowed to fail so badly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4100</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:27:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4100</guid>
		<description>@Chris&gt; I agree with everything you say about unobtrusive JS and valid markup. However this doesn&#039;t mean a site like Flickr would HAVE to work with JS disabled. That&#039;s an entirely different thing.

I for one believe it&#039;s fine to &lt;strong&gt;require&lt;/strong&gt; JS in advanced web applications. It doesn&#039;t mean we should use shitty code in them of course ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Chris&gt; I agree with everything you say about unobtrusive JS and valid markup. However this doesn&#8217;t mean a site like Flickr would HAVE to work with JS disabled. That&#8217;s an entirely different thing.</p>
<p>I for one believe it&#8217;s fine to <strong>require</strong> JS in advanced web applications. It doesn&#8217;t mean we should use shitty code in them of course <img src='http://robertnyman.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Clark</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4098</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4098</guid>
		<description>I know someone who has critiqued FlickrÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s accessibility; &lt;em&gt;optional&lt;/em&gt; features can fail with JavaScript off and the site can still pass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know someone who has critiqued FlickrÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s accessibility; <em>optional</em> features can fail with JavaScript off and the site can still pass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4096</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4096</guid>
		<description>Robert, in your introduction you wrote about the accessibility-awareness of developers. But I learned that not only the developers need to be aware of the advantages of valid markup and unobstrusive javascript, but also the designers and conceptionists. Where I work we have different teams for these tasks. My boss does the concepts. He does not have the slightest clue about thechnical details. And therefore it&#039;s often hard to implement in a reasonable way what he had planned.

@Devils Advocate:
This is only one point. Two good points about valid markup and unobstrusive js are:
- the code is easier to write, read and re-design
- the code is lighter. Bandwidth costs money, slow sites cost users.
I think there are more ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, in your introduction you wrote about the accessibility-awareness of developers. But I learned that not only the developers need to be aware of the advantages of valid markup and unobstrusive javascript, but also the designers and conceptionists. Where I work we have different teams for these tasks. My boss does the concepts. He does not have the slightest clue about thechnical details. And therefore it&#8217;s often hard to implement in a reasonable way what he had planned.</p>
<p>@Devils Advocate:<br />
This is only one point. Two good points about valid markup and unobstrusive js are:<br />
- the code is easier to write, read and re-design<br />
- the code is lighter. Bandwidth costs money, slow sites cost users.<br />
I think there are more &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4095</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4095</guid>
		<description>Devils Advocate mode:

Why should we really bother with a minimal amount of people that have javascript disabled?

I mean: We need a WEB BROWSER to access a website, right? No one is whining about this requirement. Then why is it a problem to require Javascript? It&#039;s not like Flickr for the blind would be very useful now is it?

A friendly request to enable javascript in a noscript block would be nice though.

The whole &#039;everything must work, even with ancient browsers with no CSS and no JS&#039; movement is lovely but I can perfectly understand companies that decide not to bother with the tiny percentage of users who don&#039;t have it.

If accessibility is a requirement I (and many web developers) have no problem making it happen but quite often it&#039;s hard or even impossible (think complex AJAX apps). Thing is, I just fail to see the requirement for sites like Flickr and Google Maps. For a government information site, sure thing. EVERYONE must be able to access that information. But Flickr? Google Maps? Nah....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Devils Advocate mode:</p>
<p>Why should we really bother with a minimal amount of people that have javascript disabled?</p>
<p>I mean: We need a WEB BROWSER to access a website, right? No one is whining about this requirement. Then why is it a problem to require Javascript? It&#8217;s not like Flickr for the blind would be very useful now is it?</p>
<p>A friendly request to enable javascript in a noscript block would be nice though.</p>
<p>The whole &#8216;everything must work, even with ancient browsers with no CSS and no JS&#8217; movement is lovely but I can perfectly understand companies that decide not to bother with the tiny percentage of users who don&#8217;t have it.</p>
<p>If accessibility is a requirement I (and many web developers) have no problem making it happen but quite often it&#8217;s hard or even impossible (think complex AJAX apps). Thing is, I just fail to see the requirement for sites like Flickr and Google Maps. For a government information site, sure thing. EVERYONE must be able to access that information. But Flickr? Google Maps? Nah&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Williams</title>
		<link>http://robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4093</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robertnyman.com/2006/04/19/accessibility-is-so-05/#comment-4093</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m all in favour of legislation, and would even support a sliding scale of requirements with &#039;comply-by&#039; dates. Since without legislation, there is no compelling case for any business or government to action change and improve their website&#039;s accessibility.

I increasingly believe our only hope besides legislation is the mobile revolution - the business case for being accessible via 3G mobile phone or PDA may in the near future do more for accessibility than any organisation or legislation could hope to achieve.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m all in favour of legislation, and would even support a sliding scale of requirements with &#8216;comply-by&#8217; dates. Since without legislation, there is no compelling case for any business or government to action change and improve their website&#8217;s accessibility.</p>
<p>I increasingly believe our only hope besides legislation is the mobile revolution &#8211; the business case for being accessible via 3G mobile phone or PDA may in the near future do more for accessibility than any organisation or legislation could hope to achieve.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
