my new web page

"Gavin Carey" <gicarey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bvpc7k$j5g$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Zak" <Zak@nospam.cruelmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and of course... the number of people browsing with text only are
> > significant and influential. As for the blind reading it.......
well......
> > its a visual medium
>
> Admittedly the number of people who text only browse is a limited segment
of
> the public (i tend not to, but am forced to from some of the systems I
work
> with), but that doesn't take away from the fact that needlessly embedding
> text in an image is bad web-design practice. However, visually impared
> people can and do dive, and would probably get as much out of the trip
> reports as anyone else, admittedly the image gallery wouldn't do much for
> them.

As a designer who's produced numerous websites over the years, I have to
admit that I've never really worried about providing for text-based web
browsers and the blind. As Zak says, the web is a visual medium and I just
cannot see the point in compromising on a website's design to cater for what
probably accounts for 0.01% of total visitors! Obviously it's important to
optimize graphics to the best of your abilities to reduce bandwidth
requirement but to strip visual elements to the bone just to keep some
weirdo who's viewing your site on a text terminal happy is just plain
ludicrous...

> As a designer who's produced numerous websites over the years, I have to
> admit that I've never really worried about providing for text-based web
> browsers and the blind. As Zak says, the web is a visual medium and I just
> cannot see the point in compromising on a website's design to cater for
what
> probably accounts for 0.01% of total visitors! Obviously it's important to
> optimize graphics to the best of your abilities to reduce bandwidth
> requirement but to strip visual elements to the bone just to keep some
> weirdo who's viewing your site on a text terminal happy is just plain
> ludicrous...

Usual practice is not to change any of the visible design to users of normal
browsers, but just add things like tags / descriptions to pictures so that
they are obvious, especailly when they're used for navigation. Most other
potential issues for text only / blind users should be covered by following
recommended design practice, such as not using tables for layout, making
sure links are linked on a relevant word, not 'click here' - css is the best
solution, since you can easily design pages that can be instantly made
text-only by simply removing the style-sheet. Do that, and even the most
complex, well designed web page can drop down to simple blocks of text.

Anyway, probably getting (well, already got) far far OT now... :O)

David

> As a designer who's produced numerous websites over the years, I have to
> admit that I've never really worried about providing for text-based web
> browsers and the blind. As Zak says, the web is a visual medium and I just
> cannot see the point in compromising on a website's design to cater for
what
> probably accounts for 0.01% of total visitors! Obviously it's important to
> optimize graphics to the best of your abilities to reduce bandwidth
> requirement but to strip visual elements to the bone just to keep some
> weirdo who's viewing your site on a text terminal happy is just plain
> ludicrous...

You calling me a weirdo? ;)

I worked for a while for a graphic design firm which built websites for
government agencies and big companies.

You have to be particularly careful when building a site for a US based
customer, as they have more tight laws relating to access for the disabled,
this mind set carried over into the majority of the design we did, and we
found that, in general, if a site looked and worked well for someone using
either a text based browser, or a normal browser with "download images"
switched off by default, then it would generally do well passing these other
tests.

I really don't see putting enough thought and work into your design (you
don't have to for-go layout or images, just use it correctly, and use things
such as ALT tags where are there for just this kind of purpose) as
compromising to a good design.

Gav.

"David Walker" <wbsdavenews@hotmail.com> wrote :

> Usual practice...<snip>...Do that, and even the most
> complex, well designed web page can drop down to simple blocks of text.

Said it far better than I.

> Anyway, probably getting (well, already got) far far OT now... :O)

Agreed, apologies for the thread hijack!

Gav.

Bardo <me@privacy.net> writes:

>optimize graphics to the best of your abilities to reduce bandwidth
>requirement but to strip visual elements to the bone just to keep some
>weirdo who's viewing your site on a text terminal happy is just plain
>ludicrous...

That'll be a useful defence when you get prosecuted under the
Disability Discrimination act.

Pete

--
__________________________________________________ __________________
Pete Young pete@antipope.org Remove dot. to reply
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:26:27 -0000, "Zak" <Zak@nospam.cruelmail.com>
wrote:

>and of course... the number of people browsing with text only are
>significant and influential. As for the blind reading it....... well......
>its a visual medium

Frankly, this kind of heartlessness makes me sick.

Plenty of blind people use the 'net. Is it important that they are
part of an "influential group"? No.

I wonder what your tone would be like if you were somehow deprived of
your sight...
--
ferret
Best before: see end

Pete Young wrote:

> That'll be a useful defence when you get prosecuted under the
> Disability Discrimination act.

Under exactly what grounds? He's not an employer, he's not
a trade organisation, and he's not selling goods or services.
As long as he's doing it as a hobby the act does not apply.

- Keith

"Rob Forey -- The Man With No Nails" <rforey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040203154334.22762.00000837@mb-m19.aol.com

> > Also noticed that like so many other people
> >you have decided to tell people that all content is copyrighted to you
> >etc etc. You don't need to do this as Copyright is automatic, in the UK
> >at least,
>
> This isn't correct.

Probably be told I'm totally wrong in
> all this, but I got around Warner Bros lawyers so I'm pretty sure I'm on safe
> ground
>
>(snipped0

Rob if you have a look at the Patent Office website at the address that
I have pasted below, you will see that what I stated above is correct.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm

Steve




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Keith S." <false@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:bvqmst$ur4lf$1@ID-169434.news.uni-berlin.de

> > That'll be a useful defence when you get prosecuted under the
> > Disability Discrimination act.
>
> Under exactly what grounds? He's not an employer, he's not
> a trade organisation, and he's not selling goods or services.
> As long as he's doing it as a hobby the act does not apply.

Nevertheless, it's not exactly a hardship to add ALT tags...

Vic.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

>Rob if you have a look at the Patent Office website at the address that
>I have pasted below, you will see that what I stated above is correct.
>http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/definition.htm

You are right that copyright comes into effect immediately, as it does indeed
say on the website you gave. But the site doesn't mention Fair Use or the
enforcement of copyright, which is better explained in US Code, Title 17,
Chapter 4, Section 401 ('Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies"),
where it gives advice on the placement of a copyright notice (you should give
the original date of publishing, a "(c)" sign and your name in a prominent
place on the website). The most important part of the US Code on copyright in
my opinion, and the point which makes sure that I display a prominent copyright
notice on all the websites where I want my copyright enforced, is Title 17,
Chapter 4, Section 405, subsection B ("Notice of copyright: Omission of notice
on certain copies and phonorecords") which details the 'Effect of Omission on
Innocent Infringers.' It says that under the Berne Convention Implementation
Act of 1988, any person who can prove that they were misled into innocent
infringement by the omission of a copyright notice will not be liable for
damages before the point that copyright was asserted by the owner to the
defendant. It's pretty easy for a defendant to prove this, as a website is
publicly available to millions of people and without a prominent copyright
notice one could assume intellectual copyright of the material has been waved.
So while you do still have rights over your website without a copyright notice
(you are completely right in this respect), it is possible for people to take
information from your site and use it without fear of prosecution up until the
point that you contact them to assert your copyright (after which they will be
liable for prosecution and not protected by the Berne Act as innocent
infringers.) Much easier is to place a prominent copyright notice on your main
page so as to prevent the claims of innocent infringement.

(c) 2004 Rob Forey, No Rights Reserved

PS You can find an online copy of the US Code at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/