[thelist] IE - The claret (white dotted line) on clickable images

[Ben Henick]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, the head lemur wrote:

> Since you are building the client a website, we can assume a baseline greed
> factor. Management is looking to make more money. This is normal.  A website
> is a cost effective medium to do this. They are looking to increase sales
> and/or reduce their overhead in support for their products/services.
>
> The short snappy answer is to load Netscape on his machine.

Muahahaha!

> What part of accessibility is your client having a problem with?
> The legal ramifications of Section 508 in the US, the Disability
> Discrimination Act in the UK, and others? The white dotted line is an
> accessibility "feature". It may not be the best implementation, but there
> you go.

I remember an article that ran on the site, written by Erika, in which she
pointed out the hassles involved in trying to explain to an idiot that
"no, the opportunity cost for duplicating Behavior X (which is default in
Browser A) in Browser B (where it is not a default behavior) is too high."

What we're dealing with here is similar.

I have to admit that I was unnerved by the dotted border when I first
started using IE.  Now I'm uncomfortable with Netscape 4 because it's not
there.

One might find a way to politely but directly remind the client that
the vast majority of users will be accustomed to this behavior, and will
find something remiss if it's not there on his site.  *grin*

> Is his product/service one that will only have applicability to broadband
> connected, college educated, white folks who earn in excess of $80,000 bucks
> a year?
>
> Changing 'Default' browser behaviours is dangerous, for a number of reasons.
> Over half the folks on the web have been here less than 12 months, use it
> less than 10 hours a month, and will not spend a lot of time on sites that
> don't work.
>
> You usually end up creating a scripted solution that works in only one
> browser, necessitating  multiple versions, @import tricks, and if the
> 'features' are disabled on the visitor end, such as turning off javascript,
> activeX, java, if the visitor has enabled their own style sheet, or if they
> are using any other browser, all of your solution is down the drain.

While the problem of disabled features is not one I've encountered much,
it's always a good idea to design for the eventuality since doing so is
also the first and best step one can make toward creating an index-able
and accessible site.

What stands out here (in Alan's comments) is the bit in regard to '@import
tricks' - I understand where he's coming from, but it's also occurring to
me that CSS support in Netscape 4 is so awfully, horribly broken that it
might well be a great idea to simply use those tricks to give Netscape 4
users a vanilla presentation.  But I've made that point here before...

> Bottom Line:
> The further away from default browser behaviours you go, the smaller your
> clients opportunities to save money on support, or to increase sales.

That's about right.  I don't have a problem with a client who wants to be
the creative director (within reason).  But I remind them that the more
far-out their requests, the more expensive the final tab on the project.


-- 
Ben Henick
Web Author At-Large              Managing Editor
http://www.io.com/persist1/      http://www.digital-web.com/
persist1 at io.com                  bmh at digital-web.com
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?"
"I think so, Brain, but... (snort) no, no, it's too stupid."
"We will disguise ourselves as a cow."
"Oh!" (giggles) "That was it exactly!"