[thelist] FWD: Internet World - The Dark Side Of Regulation

Just came in from the weekend:

I just don't understand why so many people are railing against the
accessability guidelines.  Here are the basics:

* Use the "alt" attribute to describe functions of each visual. 10 extra
seconds per image. And they should be there anyway, IMHO.

* Use client-side "MAP" and text for hotspots when using image maps. I don't
know anyone who uses a server-side image map these days. And if you are
bound and determined to use an image map instead of anchors, this seems
reasonable to me.

* Provide captioning and transcripts of audio, and descriptions of video.
Okay, I concede that this definitely means more work for some of us.
However, look at TV... CC is provided, but only upon request and even then
not in all cases. I don't think you need to caption your MP3's ;-), but if
you were a webmaster for MSNBC or USATODAY or some other large media
provider, I think that you should be providing an alternate means for
accessing information that would otherwise be inaccessable - i.e. video only
stories.

* Hypertext links - use text that makes sense when read out of context.
Hmmm. Usability studies have been telling us this for years.

* Organize your page by using heading, lists, and consistent structure. Use
CSS for layout and style where possible. I have been using this on my sites
for a while now and it actually helps my create better looking and
well-organized pages.

<rant> What this comes down to in a sense is that the average home page /
art site / smaller site is not going to be earmarked for the accessability
police to come crashing through the door. Only large sites and disseminators
of information for the general public's consumption will have to implement
these right away. But the fact remains: using them makes your site better!
Heck, if I want to watch an informative video at work, I WISH that sometimes
I could have a captioned version to avoid blaring my viewing habits
throughout cubicleland. And I'm definitely not visually/aurally impaired. It
would just make a site better </rant>

* Summarize graphs and charts or use "longdesc". Sure, why not. Summaries
are ALWAYS useful.

* Provide alternative content in case active features are not supported
(script/applet/plug-in). You should be doing this anyway to professionalize
your site.

* Frames - use NOFRAMES and meaningful titles. Sounds like a good idea to
me! What's wrong with it?

* Tables - make line-by-line reading meaningful. Summarize. Again, good
ideas. Clarity is always better than obtuseness.

* Check your work - validate. Yup. 'Nuff said.

<rant> Of course, this breaks the use of tables for design. *sigh* And I'm
as guilty of it as anyone. However, I'll be glad when I don't have to use
tables and single-pixel gifs to layout a site anymore, and can truly
separate the presentation from the content. And as browsers mature, and the
accessability guidelines are adhered to, I see no problem whatsoever up
ahead... </rant>

-Jay Turley