Hello, It isn't just accesibility for people with disability. I know a lot of sighted people who hate glitzy sites. I wonder where Web designers learn all this junk. There are even sites run by organizations for the blind which are full of glitz and more or less inaccessible. It also isn't necessary to have alternative, text-only or low graphics versions of sites. I've encountered many sites that combine graphics with good alt tags and are very accessible. John On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Gil Andre wrote: > > Regarding > > The problem is not so much javascript, per se, but the fact > that web designers do not include an accessible version of > their sites. > > Example: Javascript is used on many sites for implementing > "roll-over" animations: graphical text (a small gif file, > usualy) that changes color when a mouse pointer is on it, to > create a "glow" or a "shadow" effect. I have also seen drop- > down menus implemented in Javascript. This is TOTALLY > useless, and most web sites should provide a text equivalent > to these functions. > > Example: Let's say you have three main links on a page, > which are "Home", "Products" and "Order". Instead of > having pretty javascript all over the place, just include > these three links at the bottom of the page, and be done > with it!!! > > The worst offenders, as far as I am concerned, are sites > that use Javascript to point to cgi/bin scripting. This > completely breaks down compatibility as far as alternative > (Lynx/Links) web browsers are concerned, while they can > (usually) be implemented with simple HTTP POST/HTTP GET > forms and functions. > > Same thing for Flash animations. I have seen too many sites > that use fairly advanced (and very large) flash animations, > without even offering the possibility of skipping the anim > and move to a low-res www site. > > In short: don't blame Lynx/Links for not supporting Javascript, > blame &#!!!@!%! web designers who are too lazy to design > and code their web sites properly, and include a text only > or low graphic low-eye-candy version. This is plain stupid. > > On the other hand, a site like http://news.bbc.co.uk is > truly how it should be done. Click on "Low Graphic" and > every single piece of information available on the normal > site is now presented in a very accessible manner. > > Why can the BBC do it and not everybody else, like USPS? > Because you have to protest again and again, until all > sites become more accessible. US sites are pretty bad, > as far as I am concerned, maybe because of the enormous > marketing machines that all US companies have these > days... Marketing types loooooove eye-candy! <grin> > > Just my US$ 0.02... > > -- Computers to Help People, Inc. http://www.chpi.org 825 East Johnson; Madison, WI 53703