fallible. Invitation to dialogue I am going to respond to comments made by Marco Bertoni not a spirit of controversy, which I think useless, but to try, through the dialectic, to circumscribe a common background that can take us beyond the allegations in the absolute area of \u200b\u200bfeasibility.
A premise is a duty. I'm no 'rival' to anyone because I did not fight to excel. I would simply argue. If the discussion will prove fruitful, the better. Otherwise it will return all of its activities.
Reaffirm the need to write code that is syntactically and semantically correct and useful preliminary because it is an indictment against those who do not. What you consider a "no requirement", as the obvious need for the diagnosis of the first drug for me is the requirement for excellence in what it contains all the others. The more necessary, because sooner or later, so physicians will understand that drugs are prescribed without first visiting the patient. Some doctors, without rules and controls, are lethal. The correct structure and semantics of the content of Web accessibility are the key, you can not in any way give it up.
I'm sorry but I still disagree and for the same reason that we have seen others do not agree in ancient times.
It seems counterproductive to insist on trying to correct these effects last instead of tackling the causes. These are to be found in a mixture of mindset and business interests that should at least be able to identify and then try to aim in the communication process and legislation.
A well-posed problem contains within itself the solution , someone said at the beginning of last century. Scientific spirit, of course. But much to ask to adopt a scientific criterion in a legislative act? So
as proposed, the rule takes the classic whistles for flasks. I do not know the analysis of context and I turn to the operators instead of individual action
upstream on the business environment and professional that generates the effect. We continue to
look at the finger rather than turn our gaze to the one who points, then. After all, excuse the digression in other fields, I think we are masters of not addressing the causes of the problems but never limit ourselves only to the bin of the moment. Better
incinerators downstream or upstream action on the vested interests in high places and the cultural background of individuals with appropriate education for waste disposal?
repeat. The adherence to standards is not optional but is
basis of the trade that is taking place. And the examination for admission to the profession.
But how do you discern the laziness and bad from professional and commercial needs of Project Management who prefer custom-made frameworks of thousands and thousands of lines of code that enable products, past, present and future, provided to large corporations?
therefore remains as unheard soundtrack, the problem of porting
economic blocks consisting of code. Cui prodest?
(The commercial content of the blue sticker and it just moves to sell the product. We do not tell tales)
A private company can decide whether or not to pursue a policy of social responsibility (which, incidentally, offers a return of the image that also like the notorious commercial). None of us can criticize the choices of them. But a government in the different matter. If we agree that the government exists to serve all citizens, and if we agree that a disabled person is in effect a citizen like the others, then I do not "stop and reflect." If Google wants to use iframe as if it rains, no problem will lose a percentage of visually impaired users. Too bad for Google. But if administration discriminates against a group of users using a technology not available, this is unacceptable.
The answer confirms my claim without showing it.
argomentazone The primary is in fact given by the case of public utilities that, as I said, are rightly
forced to comply with these rules.
My objection, again, gives voice to a completely different category,
business, which has completely different criteria to operate. Here the fields where we both work influence, of course, our perspectives on the issue. In fact, what is said about the percentage loss
customer does not take into account a basic rule
business.
A customer ceases to be profitable when the effort to satisfy his demands exceed the ROI from these expected . So, where is the margin? It would be worse for Google
pursue this niche. It would be commercial suicide
.
Everywhere not only network, you can observe this simple principle at work. Go into any bookstore GDO (Feltrinelli, FNAC, etc.) and have a look at the catalog (both the vertical and the horizontal) and the behavior of the clerks trained ad hoc.
brutally put to annihilate an innovative service which could trigger halo effect and, therefore, to operate a cognitive lock-in to the brand with the application of Metcalfe's Law and the consequent positive impact on advertising revenue, it seems unreal but not a emerita nonsense if, as seems evident, we are still in the system called capitalism
.
still believe you are starting from two different positions (not different a priori, is well understood). A business-oriented perspective and another public service oriented. Invitation to dialogue about these differences that I personally respect and recognize
in their specificity. I do not know what it's worth the contrary.
course. It 'obvious that the underlining of links is useful only in blocks of text. The color-blind knows the conventions of design (menus, etc...) It 'something that, honestly, I took it for granted. No sane accessibility expert calls for an orgy of emphasis.
Bon. The notes, however, did not speak of the blocks of text, but generic links. I know what it refers to all but readers know of your requirements? Judging by the posts in forums and blogs full of zealots who call all'underline everywhere, the accessibility confused with usability (yep. someone confuses the issues of accessibility with those of the resource optimization Loading ...) etc. I know it's better to be clear on this point. It could well lead to the salvation army to obey Decalogues good but ill-equipped in independent thought.
The eyetracking research shows that pop-ups, flashing banners, advertising, etc. columns. are neatly and systematically ignored by users. The same Nielsen proposes an approach non etico: “making the ad look like content”.
Ma non capisco cosa tu veda di male nella sacrosanta regola che impone di evitare un attacco di epilessia al prossimo. Il requisito cinque dice solo questo, non proibisce banner o pubblicità. Attenzione a non fare il solito terrorismo sui requisiti.
Comunque abbiamo capito che le argomentazioni a favore della pubblicità lampeggiante e “esplosiva” sono inesistenti. Ci si chiede perché si continui a produrla. Un amico che lavora in pubblicità mi ha confessato che spesso a chiedere pop-up, animazioni e banner sono i clienti “ignoranti” e loro si adeguano. Perché contraddire un idiota che paga?
A dirla tutta non we have seen anything about insesistenza of the arguments in favor of commercials (judging from its actual use
). Neither seems to me that the answer can be inferred with a counter-argument
appropriate scalable alternative proposals at the business level if not the mere statement of what I already said, namely the phenomenon of 'ad-blindness
.
We have yet to find an alternative way to earn dindi through advertising. If those who branded the advertising 'explosive' have found the Holy Grail of the new Microsoft advertising is expected to check their White signed.
Pending the myth we have to make do with only three possibilities. Traditional Banners, Ad-sense-and in-context that is even worse to disguise the evil that wants to treat (as rightly noted Bertoni) in fact unusable as it would make the whole amount of information of the Internet spreading noise mixed content.
jokes aside, I still reiterate my invitation to take account of different factors, and often conflicting. If a bubble does not exist as the two positions as you will come to a strategy capable of being, together, effective and respectful of the needs of all stakeholders?
No indictment on my part, how to interpret the requirements of a regulatory requirement. Personally I have nothing against the fixed layout
You use a liquid layout (elastic).
I do not think one interpretation. It is rather, in terms of linguistic rules with a lot of reported
imperative.
An invitation to the interpretation was something like
should be used, given the technical issues, adherence to the full compatibility in any web site must obey and analysis of usability, a fixed layout.
This is a decent way to communicate
leaving a need space when interpretative contextualization.
According to Plato trouble me to exaggerate. These requirements are not asking for anything impossible, and are not in the wrong direction, they are just perfect as anything human. I choose to try to improve things from within.
not I never said that to be impossible (the supercelestial is not impossible, just perfect. An absolute logical type). I say apply what works for one side to everything. Pars pro toto. This is called absolutism that is what I am calling to avoid. Bertoni
I praised and continue to do so for his efforts in trying to improve in its sphere of influence, the current situation on which, as you may read elsewhere, we are in full agreement.
My notes are, of course, on the sidelines because they tend to indicate the existence of some problems and do not want to be but a 'critical
' in the classic sense, an analysis of a proposal. '
Critics' invitation to the barrier is not unilateral but the voice of the other. In this case, the needs of others.
This is no longer true with the Flash Player 9. Be careful not to give incorrect information;).
However, as I said elsewhere, it is wrong to confuse the accessibility of the Flash movie itself with the limits of the implementation of cross-platform and cross-browser plug-ins.
ahem.
I apologize but I am Mac user and Linux (debian) and use Windows daily to double-check. My problems are practical and concrete solutions require Adobe not PR.
I follow closely the developments
platform without giving in to easy street number.
Confusing the output with the framework that makes it possible for delivering the output is wrong?
How do I count to view a swf without the player that makes it available?
As you have a glass of tap water without the water supply?
Without language there are words?
We can write a function without a formal syntax of programming?
And so on.
Come on.
The requirement is twenty-one, I think, the only one that was asked in a loud voice who represents the disabled persons. Nothing, "Bignami hasty" and then, but listen attentively to the demands of disabled users. We never forget who are the recipients of the benefits yielded by these requirements. People with disabilities. I assure you that a distance between pixels of a button and another for those with poor control of the pointing system is something delinquent. This is not only the visual perception of differences, but di destrezza manuale.
Se vogliamo parlare insieme di accessibilità dobbiamo sempre porci dalla parte del disabile, e cercare di capire le peculiarità di ogni disabilità.
Nope. Esiste un concetto vecchio come il bacucco (lo trovi nelle prime Apple HIG - Human Interface Guidelines) che si chiama
Hotspot . Un pixel di differenziazione basta ed avanza se si ha cura del layout degli hotspot. Se poi il designer dorme e cazzeggia allegramente con i tutorials sul css, le regolette del SEO etcetera invece di studiare l'abc del GUI design, il problema non é del pixel ma del designer. Diamo una svegliata ai designer e tutto verrà di conseguenza. Limitiamo il 'designer' ai corsi regional and schools where they teach simply clicking buttons in Dreamweaver and Fireworks and here we have these results. Once again, issues of training and mindset.
What then should take the role del'utente in question is
absolutely out of question. We would not be here either to discuss all this otherwise.
If
news yesterday, the site of the police
won as the best design usable and accessible I guess there is something wrong in the structure, but adherence to standards. If I adhere to the standards of the Code and at the same time produce an interactive flow from ass to users, we can say that the adherence to standards is not enough to ensure a damn?
