Beta of "Human Factors Programming" Book
Monday August 9th, 1999
Mitch Gould writes,
"'HumanFact(tm)' currently provides 'beta' excerpts from a book-in-the-making, Human Factors Programming with the Document Object Model. Your feedback is welcome.
'Beta' version August 3, 1999.
Send 'bug reports' to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
You get the general picture (tm)."
#1 Give *some* users access?
Tuesday August 10th, 1999 12:26 PM
> GIVE ALL USERS ACCESS
So it says, anyway. So I was most amused to discover I couldn't access the site using Lynx. :)
(apologies for the anonymity: it's because I've misplaced my password, not because I'm afraid of reprisals from the author :)
#3 kinda goes counter to Guideline 1-K
Tuesday August 10th, 1999 1:55 PM
>I have ensured that the document is usable when scripts and applets are not supported or >have been disabled. If this is not possible, I provide equivalent information on an >alternative accessible page.
oh well, guess thats why their guidlines, not rules.
#2 I like that
Tuesday August 10th, 1999 1:09 PM
Overallm I like the content, it prvide lots of example, but the problem is.... some of those example doesn't work well on Navigator 4.x..
#4 Well, exactly...
Tuesday August 10th, 1999 4:49 PM
These points are well taken.
(1) Yes, the site should definitely be accessible from Lynx, and it isn't yet. Perhaps this demonstrates that these guidelines are just great in theory--but difficult to handle unless you have the staff to implement all their many demands. The smaller your operation is and the more your are trying to accomplish, the harder it is to follow these guidelines--at least in a timely fashion. Note that I had to code every byte of this site by hand because there is no editor on Earth that lets me implement all of HTML 4.0's features, at least not without some noxious interference. Your implied offer to transcode the site for full Lynx compatibility TODAY is gratefully accepted...
3. Yes, Navigator 4 doesn't do such a great job with these pages. Maybe the moral of that story is this is why HTML 4.0 and CSS haven't been as popular as they ought to be. We are ALL facing difficult decisions about getting on with the future of the Web or just staying stuck with the kludges of the past because we'll annoy X number of legacy users if we try.
I would like to add that I've reported on the concepts and recommended techniques behind the WAI guidelines, but that doesn't mean I endorse them all equally. I should have said in the chapters that I find the Initiative somewhat naive, idealistic, and sometimes even self-contradictory. Frankly, I believe it isn't essentially radical enough. A better solution is to steer authors away from publishing documents all together towards creating interactive applications designed to answer questions without forcing users to navigate through documents to find their questions answered. (Just don't expect me to show you how to do that today, though!)
Having stated that disclaimer, I generally endorse the aims and practices of WAI. For the most part, I think it's good and appropriate, and remember, I believe this isn't just about a small number of disabled users...
#5 Re: Well, exactly...
Wednesday August 11th, 1999 6:08 AM
Depending on what sort of editor you like to use for these things, you might want to try EditPlus or HomeSite. They're not WYSIWYG, but they both offer good support for HTML editing (and I believe that WYSIWYG editors are evil and misleading anyway :)