W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > September 1998

RE: what's accessible?

From: David Clark <dmclark@cast.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 13:26:52 -0400
To: <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601bddce0$34c36e90$ca557392@dmc.cast.org>
I guess my previous diatribe begged the question are we still doing "rc"
type work.

In other words, is ER just the "animation" of the guidelines on a particular
page, or are we giving accreditation/validation?

-----Original Message-----
From:	w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of William Loughborough
Sent:	Thursday, September 10, 1998 12:31 PM
To:	w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Subject:	what's accessible?

In order to satisfy both the authors and the "audience" there is some
possibility that we must compromise so that if there is a way to access
a site with full equality (I hate "separate but equal" as much as the
next guy, but...) it is acceptable.  The main goal is not to put a lot
of requirements on authors but to get their stuff usable.  So if we can
get proof that the *real* (updated, etc.) version, whether text-only
equivalent or needs to use LYNX, can be accessed - good enough.  It
cannot be a requirement that a person using browser X with screen reader
Y be able to do it, just that there is a way (within "reason").

As to what all that means, it will require that we attend to assuring
that LYNX can do the most possible to satisfy the needs of blind guys
and that seems to be ongoing - since it is free it seems not an undue
burden to have it be the rallying point for all this and in a way too
bad about not being able to use the browsers the other folks are.

Since "in the beginning there was the word" is still true it really
isn't second-class status to use a text-only browser.

Received on Thursday, 10 September 1998 13:23:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:27 UTC