On 26/11/2012 16:51, Benjie Gillam wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2012, at 16:45, Lisi wrote:
>> I can't be the only person
>> who takes one look at some websites, says well, if they don't want me, then I
>> don't want them - and surfs away without looking.
> Sight issues aside, I do that to websites that overly use Flash, or require it to do things that HTML is quite capable of doing (e.g. pressing a button/drawing an image...)
Yep, me too. I also keep pieces of paper to hand to cover the irritating
movements of many adverts.
www.w3.org has stuff on accessibility.
I used to use a tool called Bobby that I got from there, but it started
to become such a big workload trying to keep up with all the little
things about which it whinged that I eventually gave up. And I think
Bobby was better than many.
The issue for me is that they expect just about every non-text item to
have usability texts, even if they're used just as layout tools. I still
try to mark up the essential stuff, but I long since abandoned any hope
of coping with everything.
My websites are usually reasonable enough, I think, for the non or
poorly sighted to use. Far better than many others I see on the Web.
W3 have stuff here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/Overview
These days, what I usually do is look at the website using the Lynx
text-only browser. If it's sensibly usable that way, then I feel I've
done enough.
Large organisations might not get away with that :-/
Some CMS systems do a pretty reasonable job of building a usable site;
some are hopeless; I think Flash is likely impossible at present.
Gordon.
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
