John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
I think your thinking about web design is rooted in Ye Olde Ages.

No.
A web site in a public forum needs to be seen by those with the commonest,
latest, fastest, slowest machines across a range of platforms and a range of
browsers AND for those who have set up their systems to cope with a range of
visual disabilities - including partially sighted and blind AND for those
excluding facilities that they consider unnecessary and/or insecure AND those
accessing from public/company machines with other restrictions AND those using
mobile phone or similar technology AND much more.


Er, no, it doesn't.

A web site needs to be usable and attractive to its *target audience*.

If those happen to be a bunch of windows users on IE6, and you are
selling binoculars, having it braille compatible matters not one jot.

Anyone who says they design a web site to look the same or similar across the
range don't know what they are doing. A designer who promises that for a
client is misleading them.

ER, no. You are simply revealing your naivety and ignorance, and purist
bias here.

I don't expect to be able to run a video stream from a US TV station
over a 2400 baud dial up connection to a Sinclair Spectrum...running a
text only browser. Sorry.

Corporate - and private - web sites are there to do what their owners
want, for people who want to access them. Its a two way street. If they
make their sites too inaccessible and specific, they will put off users,
conversely if their sites are so useful and appealing, the users will
equip themselves with what they need.

The fact is that 99.99% of people are running
Miozilla/Firefox/Netscape/IE on their machines..and may be expected to
have at least 800x600 screens..and a connection speed of at least 56K.

The other 0.01% are only of interest to purists. Its their tough **** if
they can't get one of the mainstream browsers up and running, and, apart
from government sites dealing with the disabled, there is no reason why
what is after all visual communication medium, should be adapted to the
needs of those who can't actually see. Thats is a specific target
market, and sites intending to address it will, of course, take their
own precautions to make sure that it is addressed properly.

I assume you are one of those people who think that every airliner ought
to have disabled access to the cockpit and controls to allow parity of
opportunity to deaf dumb and blind ex-pinball players in wheelchairs,
for the purpose of taking responsibility for a cabin full of fee paying
passengers on transatlantic flights

John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
FWIW, RISCOS was never at any leading edge it was a Johnny come Lately
that failed.

Look at the first RISC OS desktop and the Microsoft equivalent of the same
date. Then come back here and retract your comment! ;-)

First consumer RISC computer, first multimedia computer, fastest most
efficient when released, fastest most efficient when RiscPC released, fastest
most efficient when StrongARM processor released for RiscPC.

Microsoft were always a million times better at marketing of course. ;-(


Which in the end is all that matters.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
wrote:
I think your thinking about web design is rooted in Ye Olde Ages.

No. A web site in a public forum needs to be seen by those with the
commonest, latest, fastest, slowest machines across a range of platforms
and a range of browsers AND for those who have set up their systems to
cope with a range of visual disabilities - including partially sighted
and blind AND for those excluding facilities that they consider
unnecessary and/or insecure AND those accessing from public/company
machines with other restrictions AND those using mobile phone or similar
technology AND much more.


Er, no, it doesn't.

A web site needs to be usable and attractive to its *target audience*.

If the target audience is the general public (see my "A web site in a public
forum") then there is legislation involved.

If those happen to be a bunch of windows users on IE6, and you are selling
binoculars, having it braille compatible matters not one jot.

Crass comment. Presumably you also don't expect the visually disabled to buy
presents?

Anyone who says they design a web site to look the same or similar across
the range don't know what they are doing. A designer who promises that
for a client is misleading them.

ER, no. You are simply revealing your naivety and ignorance, and purist
bias here.

Yes. A 'designer' who leads his client into bad publicity and possible legal
action is a liability.

I don't expect to be able to run a video stream from a US TV station over
a 2400 baud dial up connection to a Sinclair Spectrum...running a text
only browser. Sorry.

Straw argument.

Corporate - and private - web sites are there to do what their owners
want, for people who want to access them. Its a two way street. If they
make their sites too inaccessible and specific, they will put off users,
conversely if their sites are so useful and appealing, the users will
equip themselves with what they need.

And high street shops that refuse guide dogs and wheel chair access risk more
than lost customers.

[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing