Comments on: What is Web Universality?

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:39:23 +0000

Thanks for contributing! I like the comparison to voltage transformation. It’s true: what would ultimately be most valuable would be for the user agents to take on a greater part of the burden. They do a decent job, but could do so much more.

By: Colm

Colm — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:15:02 +0000

This is not a provocative comment on a very reasoned piece. However is there not a // here with 110V versus 220V, so we do need to get the user agents, eg the 110 to 220 inverter, to do more. Okay most equipment now comes with 110-220 transformers but not with a univeral plug.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 15:05:37 +0000

And I think that’s where most accessible developers in “Camp One” really lie. What confuses the issue is when a developer seizes on the term “universal” and points out specialized use cases where accessibility creates a scenario where universality is not possible: when Flash animation or interaction is necessary, for whatever reason.

But these are special circumstances: and without specific knowledge that these techniques will be important to your audience, more damage is done by using them than by avoiding them. For any general purpose site targeted at a broad audience, universality of scope provides a very high quality experience.

Thanks, Mike!

By: Mike Cherim

Mike Cherim — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:04:22 +0000

Speaking for myself, and perhaps for many people I know… we never leave accessibility behind. That is the first rule of making a universal site. If it’s not accessible to the disabled, it’s a failure.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:04:40 +0000

Got it. Irony

I think that what many of those who protest the interweaving of universality and accessibility are protesting against is the conception that designers who are including universality as a part of their accessible development are doing this at the expense of disabled users. I think this is a misconception: that accessible web developers who focus on universality are including it in addition to their other accessibility considerations.

The insistence that one should stop at accessibility is definitely the impression which is given, but I’m not certain it’s really what is intended.

By: Gill Lucraft

Gill Lucraft — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:53:21 +0000

Ummm yes that was supposed to be a wink not a smiley but once you’ve hit submit there’s no going back.
I can understand those who make a stand on accessibility, it’s right, it should be done but what I don’t understand is the insistence that you should stop there. Surely if you can provide an accessible foundation then building on it, as long as you don’t start drilling holes in it, shouldn’t be a problem.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:23:33 +0000

Thanks, Gill! We’re in the same zone of thinking, clearly. (Although, waddaya mean, yesterday? I posted this on Tuesday!)

Reasoned is what I was striving for, so I’m glad to have been successful — - at least that far!

By: Gill Lucraft

Gill Lucraft — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:12:51 +0000

Crumbs, give us a chance, it only went on yesterday.
Well done Joe, that’s probably one of the more reasoned posts I’ve read recently in a sea of flame. I’m not ashamed to say I take the Universality approach but that always comes second to Accessibility.

By: Joe Dolson

Joe Dolson — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:09:45 +0000

Doesn’t look like anyone wants to touch this subject for a bit I guess

Yeah, I figured it would either be extremely controversial or nobody would want to touch it…I was hoping, perhaps in vain, for reasoned discussion…

Thanks, Mike!

By: Mike Cherim

Mike Cherim — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:57:24 +0000

Doesn’t look like anyone wants to touch this subject for a bit I guess (I’ve been monitoring it to see if there were responses). Good post, though, Joe.

The best sites will have it all, like we want to see at Accessites: Stylish, Accessible sites built with universality in mind.