Dear Karen, Carol and listmembers
As Alan mentioned, Internet Archaeology has acknowledged the variable
nature of browsers and their capabilities from the start and has tended 
not to use as many 'cutting edge' features as we sometimes might
have liked. Indeed it's really only quite recently that the W3C has given
the status of standards to Javascript and Frames which is why we have
only just started to adopt them from time to time. Our reasons are exactly
those already stated: some people are still using non-graphic browsers
and even those that don't, don't always have the bandwidth to cope
with the other things. 

The journal's Javascript links work on most if not all platforms -
including non-graphics browsers as well as early browser versions that
don't support Javascript (the buttons just don't change colour when the
mouse is passed across). As far as other elements are concerned, for
non-graphics browsers, the cgi script that serves the registration form
for example, does not seem to cause any problems but the clickable
maps and databases unfortunately can't be viewed or used.

Despite this, I think that the journal still caters for everyone, granted  
with varying degrees of success, but it would oppose our
raison d'etre if we didn't use the capability of the medium just because
a (decreasing) minority cannot view graphics and the like.  It would make
for a "very boring, just like print and not very extraordinary" e-journal
for the rest of us - and I'd like to think that we are trying to be the
opposite of that! :-)
In most cases though, I feel that the impact and thread of each paper is
not lost even when the more advanced features of HTML are not
rendered in non-graphics browsers, but images, clickable maps and
interactive databases do enhance the viewing and learning experience.
However where they are used in the journal, they are not crucial to the
fundamental arguments as made in the text, although no doubt this
won't always be the case. 

This discussion has also highlighted for me the importance of
'alternative' text for images etc. in non-graphics browsers. It's
something I try to include but I'm sure I lapse from time to time. If
there is anyone on the list who accesses archaeology on the web regularly
with a text-only browser then please do share your experiences on the
list.


Returning to Karen's original question and trying to broaden the focus of
the discussion, I have never experienced an audio browser and in fact have
no idea how certain features like clickable maps would be rendered (I
guess it would be just what it says in the alt text, although please do
correct me if I'm wrong).  But I do feel that we should be concerned with
these elements and at least be aware that some things that we might want
to see and use on the web will cause problems for people with
disabilities.  An aside to this, I am in touch with an archaeologist who
is concerned with these very issues, especially about the problems of
navigating and viewing webpages if you have a disability. It might even
become a future paper in the journal ... of course I'll keep you
posted :-)

For those of you interested in this aspect, you might like to view the
Disability Net website at
http://www.disabilitynet.co.uk/general/createasite.html
and follow the links to sites they have created with the disabled in 
mind.

Judith

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Judith Winters,  Assistant Editor,  Internet Archaeology
http://intarch.ac.uk
King's Manor,  University of York,  YO1 7EP,  UK 
[log in to unmask]  |  Tel: +44 1904 433955  |  Fax: +44 1904 433939

       Join our mailbase discussion group - details at
      http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/intarch-interest/

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, jael wrote:

> I'm trying to find out whether accessibility of web pages is seen as an
> issue for the archaeological profession. Having looked at a number of
> archaeology-related sites, I've found that quite a few of them can't be
> viewed using a text-only browser, or one that doesn't support frames, or
> JavaScript. Is this because it doesn't seem worth the effort of catering
> to a 'minority market', or is it just that people aren't always aware of
> the potential problems? Whilst I'd accept that not many people are still
> using text-only browsers, one question I'd like to pose is: How will a
> page consisting solely of a clickable image map render in, say, an audio
> browser? And, more importantly, is this something we should concern
> ourselves about?
> 
> Incidentally, I'd be very interested to know if anyone has any up-to-
> date browser-usage statistics, either general or in relation to
> archaeological websites. 
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Karen J Walford
> Azuli IT
> 





















%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%