Comments on: How Not to Make Your Site Accessible

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:09:50 +0000

Fred, you’ve asked a good question that has no simple answer. It’s one we deal with on every web design project. It really depends on what you want the site to do and who your audience is. Each case is different. If you have a good deal of information and options to present on a given page, you can choose to design for a wider resolution and thus place more options “above the fold” rather than pushing it down the page where people have to scroll to even know it’s there. You may be willing to annoy the 8% of users at lower resolution in favor of providing a better user experience for everyone else. Factors in making this decision may include assumptions as to who the 8% of users are compared to who those with higher resolutions are.

By: Fred Mangels

Fred Mangels — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:44:59 +0000

BTW, as I alluded to on my blog, a page created using 800×600 would be usable on a computer using higher resolution but not the other way around, right? Wouldn’t it just make sense to use 800×600 and cover all your bases?

By: Fred Mangels

Fred Mangels — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:40:49 +0000

You are correct. My desktop is set to 800×600. My laptop is set higher. Silly me. I assumed most people use 800×600.

I didn’t even pick up the fact those pages are images. Hate it when people do that, too. Had a friend who ran for state assembly a few years ago that did that to his campaign page. He said he did it so it would be more difficult to hack his web site(???). Whatever.

By: Carson Park Ranger

Carson Park Ranger — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:09:33 +0000

“And with other services like Wordpress.com you can have an easy to manage site…”

Oysters and Ale is exactly this. Blog templates immediately give sites a well-designed look, and they’re free, or at worst, cheap.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:41:03 +0000

It’s true that if you are trying to build a web site and you are not technically savvy it can be confusing. But someone knew enough to register a domain name, get a hosting account and create some image files. They also knew enough to take those images and turn them in to image maps that make the buttons clickable. That’s a design choice – one that ignores accessibility. You don’t necessarily have to be a pro to know that a blind people can’t see the images.

It’s also true that you can have a web site up and running in minutes with little knowledge or investment. A quick Google search for “campaign web sites” turns up some very affordable services.

And with other services like Wordpress.com you can have an easy to manage site (it doesn’t have to be a blog, but can include a blog) very quickly and cheaply. 20 minutes with the right web consultant could give you that information. How much could that cost?

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:44:35 +0000

Not many candidates can afford to pay someone to prepare a website. And for someone who is trying to do it themselves it is like trying to learn Martian with a Russian textbook.

Obviously Clark and Atkins have professionally prepared websites.

Soon, all candidates will have to devote more money to getting a professional site – and that will significantly add to the cost of mounting a political campaign, and puts people without resources at a significant disadvantage.

The cost of running a campaign up here has increased dramatically since 2000, astronomically even. Even without factoring in the cost of websites.

By: Aaron Antrim

Aaron Antrim — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:45:43 +0000

I really think this is a big deal. It's amazing how many public transit websites aren't accessible. I wrote an article about it with relevant info for other applications: "Creating Accesible Transit Websites"