And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right?
where has the bush administration abused its power (show me reputable news articles, not hair-brained conspiracy theory)?
Well for one...how about today's The Age Editorial , which states that George Bush is pushing his Christian views against abortion through the courts by appointing judges that are pro-life and refusing to sign UN documents that may encourage abortion or the use of condoms to help eradicate the spread of AIDS? Isn't that exactly what the Taliban did to Afghans but Islam not Christianity?
One thing that annoys the hell (oops that's a bad word in the states isn't it?) out of me is when a Liberal govt is in power here in Australia, foreign policy tends to be directed by the American President, however WE cannot decide who the American President is...as we are not American citizens.
See, this is the thing that I don't understand. Designing any NEW page on a current website can be easily designed into an accessible page. Closing tags doesn't take that much or an effort, making sure it's in lowercase and adding alt tags isn't much of an effort. I know all you people out there say that uppercasing tags makes it so much easier to read the code etc, however most text editors nowdays are smart enough to colour code tags for you, which make it even easier to read.
And I know that there's the current layout of the website (the whole look and feel thing) that the new page has to stick to, but I believe making any new page on a website as accessible as possible is going far enough for the meantime (until you get sued).
In Australia, if an organisation is sued (sp?) but they have a plan that says that within 5 years time the website will be accessible, then they won't have to go to court and pay out millions of dollars as long as they reach their goal. It doesn't take much time and effort to make sure a new webpage is accessible, people are just too lazy to learn the "new" ways and to change what they've been doing for the last 15 years. And commercial organisations are always changing the layout of their pages (every 2 - 3 years) so why don't they actually put in that extra effort to learn something new and make the new look and feel accessible?
It all comes back to change, ppl don't like it and never will.
Under the w3.org checklists for priority two accessibility, it outlines that measurements must be in relative units. However, if a graphic is placed in the left navigation bar of a layout with a header, left nav and middle content and all divisions are marked using relative measurements, then how can a designer make sure that this graphic (logo) is not overlapping the text in the middle content section when the browser is restored to a smaller size without using absolute units?
To explain that in english, when the browser is restored to a smaller page, and the left nav is say set at 20% and the right nav at 80% width, if the graphic is set at a certain size and becomes larger than the width of the left nav, then this will overlap text in the middle nav.
And another question. Accessibility means making websites accessible to all people, with different browsers and different disabilities. What do you feel about web designers designing for "look" rather than compatibility. I know a lot of designers only check that their site "looks pretty" in IE (idiots for using it!) and ignore all other browsers.
Slashdot Mirror
where has the bush administration abused its power (show me reputable news articles, not hair-brained conspiracy theory)?
Well for one...how about today's The Age Editorial , which states that George Bush is pushing his Christian views against abortion through the courts by appointing judges that are pro-life and refusing to sign UN documents that may encourage abortion or the use of condoms to help eradicate the spread of AIDS? Isn't that exactly what the Taliban did to Afghans but Islam not Christianity?
One thing that annoys the hell (oops that's a bad word in the states isn't it?) out of me is when a Liberal govt is in power here in Australia, foreign policy tends to be directed by the American President, however WE cannot decide who the American President is...as we are not American citizens.
Ok that's my ramble for the day
And I know that there's the current layout of the website (the whole look and feel thing) that the new page has to stick to, but I believe making any new page on a website as accessible as possible is going far enough for the meantime (until you get sued).
In Australia, if an organisation is sued (sp?) but they have a plan that says that within 5 years time the website will be accessible, then they won't have to go to court and pay out millions of dollars as long as they reach their goal. It doesn't take much time and effort to make sure a new webpage is accessible, people are just too lazy to learn the "new" ways and to change what they've been doing for the last 15 years. And commercial organisations are always changing the layout of their pages (every 2 - 3 years) so why don't they actually put in that extra effort to learn something new and make the new look and feel accessible?
It all comes back to change, ppl don't like it and never will.
To explain that in english, when the browser is restored to a smaller page, and the left nav is say set at 20% and the right nav at 80% width, if the graphic is set at a certain size and becomes larger than the width of the left nav, then this will overlap text in the middle nav.
And another question. Accessibility means making websites accessible to all people, with different browsers and different disabilities. What do you feel about web designers designing for "look" rather than compatibility. I know a lot of designers only check that their site "looks pretty" in IE (idiots for using it!) and ignore all other browsers.