Re: FN-FORUM: Feedback on my first "accessible" web site

date posted 15th June 2007 15:51

Colin Rainsforth wrote:
>
> At 16:54 +0000 14/6/07, Paul Newson wrote:
>> > white on black might be hard for some
>>
>> This is true, but for others it's the best option because there is less
>> light hitting the retina - it depends upon the nature of their visual
>> impairment. I would suggest providing the option of light on dark or
>> dark
>> on light.
>
> As stylesheets can be overridden - just like text size - using the
> browser's own functionality, is this really necessary when authoring
> with HTML/CSS?
>
> Surely much of the onus of accessibility is on browser manufacturers to
> retain and improve these kind of standard, functional flexibilities
> rather than on individual authors to run like hampsters in a wheel,
> trying to invent their own solutions to potential issues?
>

+1

my firmly developing belief is that I should pragmatically make no
effort to provide *extra* accessible functions, on the basis that not
having stairs (instead have ramps or lifts) is better than providing
strong men to carry people up the stairs.

let the user decide, and provide, whatever assistive technology they
need, but keep out of their way by conforming to standards and allowing
sites to degrade gracefully.

first do no harm....

;)

and on the white on black issue - I have TFT screens (that auto-respond
to ambient light) I can get a very dark black and a very white white, I
cannot read a whole page of white on black without seeing extra text
from POV. [1]

I have desaturated my screen to compensate. but generally avoid light on
dark sites...

;)


[1] persistence of vision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision
Persistence of vision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia