<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Congratulations to flickr&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.pahudson.net/archives/176/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.pahudson.net/archives/176</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:25:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Glover</title>
		<link>http://blog.pahudson.net/archives/176/comment-page-1#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Glover</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:49:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pahudson.net/archives/176#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Definitely agree with your sentiments.

Flickr is a great website (and community) and works really well, especially when you think about how much data they must be shifting every second.

It is also interesting to note that Flickr is very graceful in how it falls back into accessibility mode. All the features are still there and the layout is essentially the same too. I can imagine that some people setting up a similar site would have ignored certain accessibilty issues (e.g. &quot;We host host photos, so no-one with visual impairments is likely to use our service, so why go to the trouble of supporting these users?&quot;), but it seems that the Flickr team got it right when they looked at accessiblity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Definitely agree with your sentiments.</p>
<p>Flickr is a great website (and community) and works really well, especially when you think about how much data they must be shifting every second.</p>
<p>It is also interesting to note that Flickr is very graceful in how it falls back into accessibility mode. All the features are still there and the layout is essentially the same too. I can imagine that some people setting up a similar site would have ignored certain accessibilty issues (e.g. &#8220;We host host photos, so no-one with visual impairments is likely to use our service, so why go to the trouble of supporting these users?&#8221;), but it seems that the Flickr team got it right when they looked at accessiblity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

