* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-26 08:14]: > If accessibility is a goal, how are you certain we are not > meeting it? The web site has no javascript I can discern, it is > localized in my language, it uses no flash, it is accessible y braille > terminals. Have we not already met the goals, then?
I'm sure you have heard it somewhere before already, but: "There's
always room for improvement." "If you reach your goal you are dead."
> If there are parts of the goals that are not met, can you point
> me to concrete shortcomings? And why can't just those shortcomings be
> answered, rather than a redesign from the ground up?
If there wouldn't be any shortcomings then how would you explain the
regular mails about people getting lost in the links? About not finding
what they are looking for? Like, "Getting Debian" sounds poor to me,
and when you actually follow that page you get to a page where you can't
get Debian but rather have a longish explenation about the different
approaches, and when you decided you just want to download the damn
thing and click you are again at the next hop with longish explenations
about netinst, jigdo and stuff.
> Does anyone have _any_ idea what the goals of the redesign are?
Improvement of navigation is definitely one that I hope to see in it.
And with some design tricks this can be quite easily and especially
effective be enhanced. Of course, it might not be easily enhanced for
every accessibility needing person, but that doesn't mean we can't do
things for a lot (as long as we don't make it worse for the others).
> this raises concerns that the whole effort is doomed to failure --
Right, everything can fail. And quite a lot things do. And did in
history. That doesn't mean that _trying_ to put some effort in is a
failure, rather the contrary. Like history showed.
Stops the mail.
Alfie
--
<wenz> quit
<wenz> ~/quit
-!- wenz [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit [ircII2.8.2-EPIC3.004 ---
Bloatware at its finest.] -- #debian.de
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
