...
> To address Sally's point, I think that saying that you have
> to code for version 3 browsers because of disability
> guidelines actually misses the point. That's not how the
> disability guidelines should be interpreted - users do have
> some responsibility to make sure they have the equipment they
> need. If that weren't the case, a blind user could sue you
> because they didn't have a screen reader set up and you
> haven't embedded sound files thoughout your site.
>
> To take a more extreme example, imagine someone who can't
> walk but doesn't have a wheechair suing an organisation
> because they won't provide a member of staff to carry them
> everywhere, even though the organisation HAS had ramps and
> lifts installed.
>
> Using old browsers is not a disability.
I agree completely. If a user with disabilities can't access a
resource, you give them the latest version of a browser with all the
accessibility features (zoom capabilities, speaking browsers, etc.) and
apprporiate support (how to configure a personal style sheet to handle
colour issues, etc.
If you continue to provide HTML 3.2 and avoid use of CSS, then your
organisation is in a very difficult position.
The important thing is to make sure your data is clean and compliant
with XHTML and CSS standards.
Brian
> Kat
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> Dr Kat Street
> Web Developer - Research
> http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/~ulzkls/
>
> Room B105, Cripps North
> University of Nottingham
> University Park, NG7 2RD
> Tel: 0115 9513222
> Fax: 0115 9513353
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> _______________________________________
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Brian Kelly wrote:
>
> | Hi Sheila
> | As Kriss and Sally have mentioned, institutions are
> still running
> | Netscape 4. There are resource implications in upgrading browsers,
> | especially in a distributed environment.
> | Interestingly at the Web Managers workshop the need to
> get rid of
> | Netscape 4 within the community was mentioned on several occasions,
> | including the Techies discussion group.
> | With the SENDA legislation approaching, this may act as
> a spur to
> | get rid of Netscape 4, as this has very poor support for
> stylesheets,
> | which are needed to maximise the accessibility of Web pages.
> | However this still leaves open the browser which should replace
> | Netscape 4. From recent discussions, Netscape 6 is flawed (I think
> | Kriss mentioned that it can't display Netscape home page properly).
> | Mozilla 1.0 sounds promising - but so did Netscape 6 when
> it came out.
> | Has anyone tested it extensively yet?).
> | I've used Opera as my default browser for 6 months or
> so. This has
> | been fine - but there is an ad in the browser which people
> may not like.
> | Discusions about other mainstream browsers tends to be rather
> | emotive.
> | The Web Standards project is probably a good place to
> look at for
> | comments on standards-compliant browsers - see
> | http://www.webstandards.org/act/campaign/buc/
> |
> | Brian
> | ---------------------------------------
> | Brian Kelly
> | UK Web Focus
> | UKOLN
> | University of Bath
> | BATH
> | BA2 7AY
> | Email: [log in to unmask]
> | Web: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/
> | Phone: 01225 38 3943
> |
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: List for the UK HE community to discuss all aspects of
> | > managing an institut [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> | > On Behalf Of Sheila Thomas
> | > Sent: 12 July 2002 13:38
> | > To: [log in to unmask]
> | > Subject: Usage of Netscape 4 and/or MSIE 4
> | >
> | >
> | > A while ago, I recall reading or hearing that a
> considerable number
> | > of UK academic users were still using a version 4 browser. Our
> | > software people are pushing me to stop bothering about making our
> | > pages suitable for use on such antiquated browsers. Our
> usage logs
> | > indicate that we have very few visitors with MSIE 4 or
> Netscape 4,
> | > so it is getting harder to resist the pressure.
> | >
> | > Can anyone give me an idea whether academic institutions have
> | > upgraded?
> | >
> | > --
> | > Sheila Thomas [log in to unmask]
> | > Web Manager at TWI
> | > http://www.twi.co.uk
> | >
> | >
> ____________________________________________________________________
> | > _
> | > The information in this e-mail is confidential, and may be
> | > legally privileged. It is intended only for the person(s)
> | > specified in the above address. Access to this e-mail by
> | > anyone else is unauthorised, and any disclosure, copying,
> | > distribution or other use of this e-mail is prohibited and
> | > may be unlawful. We will not under any circumstances have
> | > any responsibility or liability arising out of or in
> | > connection with any unauthorised use of this e-mail. Please
> | > inform us if this message has gone astray before deleting it.
> | >
> | > Please note that all e-mail is monitored.
> | >
> | > When sending e-mails to TWI, please help us by including
> your name,
> | > company, and details in your e-mail signature.
> | >
> | > For further information about TWI, please visit
http://www.twi.co.uk
| >
| > ____________________________________________________________________
| > _
| > This message has been checked for all known viruses by UUNET
| > delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. For
| > further information visit
| > http://www.uk.uu.net/products/security/virus/
| >
|
|