yes, browser developpers like wordprocessor and tellecomm package
developers would do well to spend the little extra energy to provide
universally accessible products.  this standard needs work as well.
It would however allow all screenreaders to have a level playing field to
work with.
annother version of the site was not exactly what I had in mind.  a switch
in the layout coded into the html was more what I was thinking of here.


On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Kelly Ford wrote:

> David,
>
>
>
> > Kelly, You raise some excellent points.  it might be simpler to have the
> > screenreader report "link" where there is an alt tagless link which could
> > make it more universal.  as regards frames, I find that the site
> > reflecting frames and then putting the content in regular style below or
> > using a noframes option can be helpfull.
>
> I would think getting developers of programs like Netscape and Internet
> Explorer to put a default phrase for untagged links would have more
> universal appeal.  Take a look at what happened before either program
> supported any kind of keyboard navigation.  You had the various screen
> reader companies coming up with assorted tricks, like the JFW macros, to
> attempt to provide keyboard access to links.  You were then left with the
> situation of the users of one particular screen reader having things work
> one way, at least until the browser changed when the cycle had to start
> over.  Having the browser developers take some recognition of the fact
> that not everyone can see who uses the software would help.  Microsoft has
> started this but untagged links are still a large problem.
>
> I would agree that a noframes option is nice but advocating for it is
> probably a bit unrealistic.  It is hard enough getting folks to tag links,
> let alone develop another version of the site.  And I personally don't
> think frames pose that large of a barrier to accessibility when accessed
> with a graphical browser.
>
> Until there are some standards defined I think we are going to have
> serious difficulty impacting the accessibility of the web.  When a builder
> constructs a building he or she can pull out assorted guidelines which
> give fairly precise instructions on what must be done to make something
> accessible.  I know of no such universal standard for the web.  The
> material at Trace is a quality starting point but, at least in my view,
> can hardly be pointed to as something to say if you do this your site will
> be accessible.  This is mostly because the first question I as a web
> designer would have is which this in Trace's document should I follow.
> There are many strategies but few certainties.
>
>
>
>

Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s
touching the internet
voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
[log in to unmask]
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://www.clark.net/pub/poehlman