Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

Reply
Thread Tools

It does not look good for Target. Web Accessibility news

 
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On Oct 5, 1:21 pm, Jerry Stuckle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 11:07 am, Phil Payne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> "etc"? Hardly, it completely limits "etc" Simple example an all
> >>> Flash site. The guidelines limit virtually any innovation on the web.
> >> Quite the reverse. Thay make the innovation of handheld browsers MUCH
> >> more accessible.

>
> >> A million iPhones sold? How many Blackberrys? How many Nokia
> >> Communicators?

>
> >> And these devices are being used by people in the right demographics,
> >> with high disposable incomes. Most of the guidelines for making web
> >> sites accessible also make them handheld friendly.

>
> >> Flash is as obsolete as frames. Sorry - backed wrong horse. It's
> >> actually disabled on this machine.

>
> > That's an extremely ignorant statement.

>
> > Flash is the fastest growing online market. Flash video is THE single
> > fastest growing technology at the moment. I'm really shocked by your
> > statement.

>
> Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?


Apparently!

> What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.


yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.

> also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> to get an updated one.
>
> I agree flash use is growing. In fact, I want some flash on one of my
> sites (no, not the home page! - an interactive demo). But I'm not the
> graphics types. Gotta find a designer I can afford to sub to who can do
> this
>
> Flash is overused in some cases, IMHO. But it is necessary for some things.


Flash is still really abused, but it's coming of age I think. Some of
the things we've seen here (at our studio) over the past year are
really... astonishing. They can totally change the way you behave
online, and make it a much more pleasant & rewarding experience. Flash
is not some great panacea. Give it another year.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Harlan Messinger
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
Chaddy2222 wrote:
> This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> frequently on their mobile devices.


Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chaddy2222
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On Oct 5, 10:58 pm, Harlan Messinger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
> > This is all very true, but I think in places such as Australia (where
> > I am) it will be just too much $$ for people to brows the web
> > frequently on their mobile devices.

>
> Twenty years ago most people probably wouldn't have believed the amount
> of money we spend each month for cell phones instead of just using a pay
> phone or waiting till we got home, or that we'd spend US$400 on a device
> to carry music around with us instead of just carrying a pocket radio.

Ahh yes, very true. I think it will be another year or three though
before people start browsing the web on their mobile devices
frequently as the prices will need to come down a bit, a bit like what
happend here in Australia when broadband internet was introduced.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Payne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
> > Don't you know that any technology you don't like is obsolete?

> Apparently!


(Can we do some more trimming, guys?)

WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
from everything. Now dead.

> > What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.


Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
an unknown technology.

Now you have, e.g., http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/05/bt_fon_wimax/
where BT lets you use other people's private WiFi routers if you open
up your own - so you can walk down the street with your handheld and
surf. Most of the public house chains in the UK have WiFi - Sheffield
City Council (where I live) has a public system covering hte whole of
the City Centre.

> yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.


Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
Flash Lite.

Why not do it just once?

> > also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> > to get an updated one.


He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
SpaceGirl wrote:

> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.
>


??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
undercut text for bandwidth.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On Oct 5, 2:18 pm, Phil Payne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> WML/WAP was the exciting technology of the future that would take over
> from everything. Now dead.


Yep, because the platform changed. Most modern mobile devices can
render full XHTML, so it became irrelevant.

> > > What he's ignoring is that most web surfing is NOT done on phones.

>
> Five years ago most web surfing was not done on broadband. WiFi was
> an unknown technology.


The world moves on...

> > yes. And that many smart phone are actually Flash enabled too.

>
> Flash Lite is to Flash as WML is to XHTML/CSS. And anyway - why do
> everything THREE times? Once for the Flash enabled, once for those
> who can't use Flash even if they want to (see the original subject of
> this thread - it's a LEGAL requirement in the UK to provide an
> alternative under the Disability Discrimination Act) and again for
> Flash Lite.


Or build web sites the way they should be build. Your application,
data and UI layers are completely separated so it doesn't matter what
presentation technology you use.

> Why not do it just once?
>
> > > also, I can't help it if his phone is old and obsolete. Maybe he needs
> > > to get an updated one.

>
> He he. I'm in the UK, you idiot.


So am I (Scotland)... I have a 3G broadband phone and in a few weeks
an iPhone. The networks here in the UK are ahead of the US, for
example.

 
Reply With Quote
 
SpaceGirl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> SpaceGirl wrote:
> > The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
> > web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.

>
> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
> undercut text for bandwidth.


Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
uninteresting.

Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
SpaceGirl wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2:31 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> SpaceGirl wrote:
>>> The irony being? Flash files can be, much, much smaller than average
>>> web pages. You can get a complete UI inside just a few Kb.

>> ??? When, where? The statement may be true for those over-bloated
>> image-slice sites or MS Publisher abortions, but no graphics is going to
>> undercut text for bandwidth.

>
> Very few web sites are just text. Even ones designed for mobile
> platforms. Text-only sites are NOT good enough for most people. Fine
> for machines (screen readers) and other inhuman devices, but for
> emotional creatures like this, reams of unformatted text are... nasty,
> uninteresting.


I did not say devoid of style. I am say that in no way a "image" of text
will be smaller then text including the CSS styling.

>
> Because very few people use Flash for this yet. The technology is very
> new. It wasn't really achievable (realistically) before Flash 9. Flash
> contains a full-blown language; you can completely construct a UI
> inside it without ANY external graphics, meaning the size is tiny. You
> can create a fully working blog in around 5Kb, including graphical
> header, a fluid animated UI. It'd work on all computers that have
> Flash 9 player installed. Think of all the HTTP & IP overhead (1kb or
> more, per file) you are saving alone by serving a single SWF file vs.
> lots of small gifs, the page itself, css document and so on.
>


5Kb eh? URL?


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ben C
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007
On 2007-10-05, SpaceGirl <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
[...]
> Flash itself is a web browser. It's also a virtual machine, we an
> extremely powerful programming language at its core.


Isn't its programming language very similar to/the same as JavaScript?

> It leverages the kind of functionality that can only be dreamed of
> with JS and traditional HTML.


Does it leverage anything that can't be dreamed of with JS and HTML plus
SVG?
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Gill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007


Travis Newbury wrote:

> You know, if they put a cap on the amount of money trial lawyers could
> make this lawsuit (as well as thousands of others) would disappear in
> about a second.
>
> Or better yet, how about if you sue someone and lose then both the
> plaintiff and the lawyer are equally responsible for the defendant's
> leagal fees, expenses, and a little punitive money. THAT would put an
> end to some of this bullshit.
>


I won't argue, frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem, and I know this
is anecdotal, but to bolster your point here's a first hand experience
(sans a lot of gory details). After I became disabled, a multinational
did something to me and every other disabled employee that was patently
illegal. When I pursued legal remedy I was told more than once, "they
can't do that, but your case will take lots of work, will not produce
piles of money or big headlines, so we can't help you."

Unfortunately, as with most serious problems, there is no single simple
solution. It's already like a game of table stakes poker, the player
who sits down with the biggest stack of chips has the advantage. I
won't say "unfair" advantage, because I truly believe "fair" is a
subjective term. On the other hand, when juries that think that damage
awards are like winning the lottery, that's part of the problem too.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
treeview renders nothing, but does look good in design view? web.siteMap jobs ASP .Net 1 10-29-2007 08:34 PM
ASP.NET 2.0 web part accessibility question Jonathan Carter ASP .Net 0 12-03-2005 10:13 PM
Good accessibility? SamuŽl van Laere HTML 20 11-28-2004 11:31 AM
asp.net and Web Accessibility Standards Paul G ASP .Net 1 02-26-2004 10:26 PM



Advertisments