|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 1996, a style-vs.-structure debate raged among Web site builders.
Back then, when 'style' meant putting up accessibility barriers for a large portion of the on-line world, this report would have come down on the 'structure' side of that debate.
But the design/structure debate is over, and the knowledge gained during that debate guides us at OrbitAccess. We're still on one side: the access side. We believe the Web paradigm of multidimensional links accessible to every Internet-connected device is absolutely valid. There was never an excuse for "this browser only" that translated into "not welcome here" to millions of visitors -- and today there is no reason for it at all.
Accessibility does not destroy or impede innovation, imagination, appeal, look & feel, or coolness.
But it takes more than a designer to create an accessible site. Web designers must work hand-in-hand with Web architects -- those who know markup and style sheets and multimedia and databases and proprietary products -- to keep all their doors open as sites get more interesting or novel or complex.
With accessibility as a normal part of Web site creation, one site is built once for everyone.
Kludges are no longer needed. Advanced servers, style sheets, and synchonized multimedia are just a few of the tools available -- especially to Presidential candidates raising millions of dollars. For elected officials, access is an issue of constituency. For companies, it's a way to improve the bottom line. For public institutions, it's a way to stay within the law.
At OrbitAccess, the issue we're delineating is clear: No site design needs to suffer to make it 100% accessible.
OrbitAccess Home Page | Report Index | Previous: Sites on Compact-Display Browsers | candidate@orbitaccess.com