- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:53:48 +0200
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Murray Maloney wrote: > ... >> I think fundamentally that approaches to accessibility that rely on >> education are basically doomed. We need to have accessibility be much >> more >> automatic than that. We need to make it easier to write accessible pages >> than to not do so, even for people who don't care about accessibility. >> This is why, for instance, we have separation of presentation from >> semantics as such a core feature in HTML5 (and HTML4) -- it's not called >> out as an accessibility feature, but it gets authors into the mindset of >> thinking of what they mean, not what they want it to look like, and that >> helps AT users. > > "Approaches to accessibility that rely on education are basically > doomed." Ian Hickson, 2009 > > Does the WG agree with this principle? > ... I don't think so. What I *do* agree with is that it's a good thing if it does not rely on education, but that doesn't automatically mean that a feature that does and is already there should be removed. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 04:54:38 UTC