Our design philosophy - 1
(A cracking read!)
by Stephen Davy
I've said elsewhere that I design websites to be accessible and I am a firm believer in designing to standards. While I am adamant that certain standards should be met, I am pragmatic and not obsessive and so my belief comes in stages.
In the first instance "accessible" means readable by all web browsers, or more correctly "user agents". A web browser is something like Internet Explorer, which converts the page into something visual on a computer screen for the user to read and browse. But it's not just visual web browsers that read and interpret web pages. For example other user agents, "screen readers", convert the page into audible speech for the visually impared user. Designing to standards increases the probability that pages will reach various audiences in a meaningful way. As a side benefit, search engines can make more sense of pages written in a standards compliant way. After all, search engines do not use browsers.
Secondly, "accessible" means maximising the readability for the visually impaired who still use the more conventional visual browser. This is done by good page design and by allowing the individual some control over, for example, colour and text sizes, if the user so wishes.
HTML standards
HTML (Hypertext Markup Language) is the backbone standard for web browsers and the World Wide Web (WWW). I believe that all sites should at least conform to the Worldwide Web Consortium (W3C) HTML standard, the latest and last of which is HTML 4.01. (Extensible HTML (XHTML) builds upon and takes over from HTML 4.01 to create standards that are intended to provide richer Web pages on an ever increasing range of platforms as well as personal computers.)
HTML 4.01 specifies some elements as "depreciated", which means that authors are advised to stop using these elements, over time.
W3C has developed alternative methods to perform similar functions that usually increase accessibility. So HTML 4.01 itself comes in three flavours: Transitional, where the depreciated elements are allowed; Strict, where they are not allowed; and Frameset, which is another story.
I personally cannot see why all sites should not at least meet Transitional requirements, although I now prefer to use Strict.
One issue with HTML 4.01 Strict is that it does not allow the author to include links that open up other browser windows while keeping the current window intact. The right and wrongs of the decision by W3C to exclude this ability is the subject of much debate.
A common reason for wanting this second window is the author doesn't want to risk the chance of the user not coming back when the link is to a page outside the current website, but which the author nevertheless thinks will be of some interest to the user! This is a valid commercial reason but the W3C argument is that the automatic opening of multiple windows can be confusing to some users and the user, rather than the author, should make the decision. (Many browsers give the user this ability. For example, a right click on a link using Internet Explorer for Windows offers the option of "Open in new window".)
A counter argument is that in some instances it is more beneficial to the user to have the link open in a different window. Under such circumstances I use techniques where the default is to open in a new window but where the user is able to turn off this feature - in the spirit of the standard perhaps?
email: stephen@davyanddavy.com.
