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 > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%