Tuesday, May 17, 2005
"Applying..." - Waddell, "Accessibility..." - IA, "The Race..." - Gill :)
I never really thought about the standard of accessibility of the internet being available to just people with normal vision. It is definitely a discriminating act toward people with disabilities. The public space that's supposed to be available to everyone allows only the majority of people to get to access the graphic-based medium. If it's not accessible to all people, the term "public space" really doesn't live up to its function. Maybe the government can still keep the text-based medium for those whose needs depend on it. I mean it is understand to use visual devices for many services because it's a lot more convenient than to learn to use different kind of devices. I guess audio devices still limits users with hearing problems. I don't know what the best solution for this would be. Maybe someone can find a solution to stop this sensory discrimination. The ADA is making a request for the government to provide effective communicating devices or auxiliary aids that can help people with visual impairment retrieve knowledge. Adobe has become one of the most popular software that people use to read data because it is so simple to acquire data. It's slogan is "what you see is what you get"--definitely true.
Extra Credit
It amazes that the 2 people who are considered to be leaders have website campaigns that don't accommodate people with visual impairment. As stated in Kathy's article, link arrangement in Bush's website is hard to spot because its organization doesn't follow people's expection, but Kerry's arrangement is suitable for Western users because it's position according to Western eye movement--left to right. The color usage of both sites still need works to accommodate elderly people with bad eyesight. Bush's site uses bright red that can have effect on people's psychological eye-movement, which can make them miss important information. As for Kerry, the use of color in his sight can be quite strainful for elderly people. In addition, the consistency of webpages can cause people to feel annoyed because they just can't find what they want. Also, Both sides do not respond to people's comments on their blogs. Why have blogs if they do not want to give people feedbacks? I mean, isnt' that the whole point of having a blog? The government definitely should set a good example of creating "common" website that can accommodate all users. Maybe then, other association might want to followsuit.
Extra Credit
It amazes that the 2 people who are considered to be leaders have website campaigns that don't accommodate people with visual impairment. As stated in Kathy's article, link arrangement in Bush's website is hard to spot because its organization doesn't follow people's expection, but Kerry's arrangement is suitable for Western users because it's position according to Western eye movement--left to right. The color usage of both sites still need works to accommodate elderly people with bad eyesight. Bush's site uses bright red that can have effect on people's psychological eye-movement, which can make them miss important information. As for Kerry, the use of color in his sight can be quite strainful for elderly people. In addition, the consistency of webpages can cause people to feel annoyed because they just can't find what they want. Also, Both sides do not respond to people's comments on their blogs. Why have blogs if they do not want to give people feedbacks? I mean, isnt' that the whole point of having a blog? The government definitely should set a good example of creating "common" website that can accommodate all users. Maybe then, other association might want to followsuit.
# posted by Josephina B. @ 10:10 PM 
