- From: Peter Verhoeven <pav@oce.nl>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 11:10:09 +0200
- To: <mike@vorburger.ch>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Hi Michael, The index.html seems accessible to me. So why translate it into text-only version. >1) Separate/Alternative accessible version: I think realistically this is >the way the go, even though in theory it would be nicer to have just one >version, with different CSS etc. - but the web and webmasters are just not >at that point yet. To make two versions of a website, graphical and text-only, cost to much time and money on maintanance. So I think this is not the way to go. >2) Interactive vs. automated/batch transforms: I strongly defend fully >automated tools for TRANSFORMATION, maybe less so for Evaluation. "General >public webmasters" don't want to spend time looking at details, but they >might be willing to provide an accessible site if it can be done >automatically by a tool, with a simple click. Maybe you are right, they are willing to make their website accessible if the only thing they have to do is ONE click, but this doesn't work in practice. The major problem with accessibility of webpages at this moment is NOT there are graphics, but there are no ALT tags include with these graphics. I think a tool that let webmasters interactively enter ALT tags has the highest priority. If all graphics on the Internet has a good ALT tag and image map were handled well, I think the Internet is more accessible and there is no need for an alternative text-only version. Regards Peter Verhoeven Internet : http://www.plex.nl/~pverhoe (The Screen Magnifiers Homepage)
Received on Monday, 19 October 1998 05:10:16 UTC