- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:55:23 -0400
- To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Anne -- I would be glad to share the site, but I can't (don't have permission / don't have the technical ability) since it is currently on a private intranet. The site does precious little for the truly cognitively impaired. The site is pretty, but that is really for everybody (especially the non-technical bureaucrats that are funding the project). All parts of Checkpoint 14 are addressed nicely, but the site remain totally inaccessible to a non-reader. Really what the author is trying to do is to twist the WCAG against itself by playing one disability group (the learning impaired) against another (the blind) [sigh] -- all without really doing anything in particular for the first group! [heavier sigh] -- Bruce On Thursday, July 22, 1999 10:32 AM, Anne Pemberton [SMTP:apembert@crosslink.net] wrote: > Bruce, > > I am still struggling at preparing a list of accommodations for the > learning and cognitively disabled population. Not many people have been > looking for accessibility for those groups specifically. Since this person > says that's his purpose, I would like to see what he/she has done towards > that end. Please post the URL for the site, or if you prefer, send it to me > private e-mail. > > Thanks, > > Anne > > At 10:09 AM 7/22/1999 -0400, Bruce Bailey wrote: >> Allow me to quote from an email sent by contractor defending his work after >> I critiqued his horribly inaccessible site. Mind you, this vendor >> understands that accessibility is an issue. My main point in posting this >> here is to provide hearsay evidence that vendors will try and use WCAG as a >> "Chinese menu" -- picking and choosing among what they want. And this is >> with the current WCAG. Charles' observations are quite on the mark. We >> don't dare weaken the A/AA/AAA levels! >> >> The names will remain anonymous to protect the guilty... >> >>> There is nothing in these guidelines which prevent having an alternate >>> site. In fact, it is encouraged. The W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility >>> Guidelines themselves explicitly tell developers to create an alternate >>> page when the current page doesn't "transform" well. As it stands, >>> our site meets a large number of the priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints >>> outlined in the guidelines. Also, the graphics version is needed to >>> satisfy the requirements regarding people with learning disabilities to >>> help them associate ideas. The text only version designed for blind >>> users might violate their rights. >> >> I have written back saying that "required as a last resort" is more >> accurate than "encouraged" and that it does not matter how many Priority 2 >> and 3 checkpoints are addressed if even ONE Priority 1 checkpoint is >> missed, the site will remain inaccessible. >> >> Actually I went on in detail about a number of points. This particular >> work in progress is in real trouble because the vendor is generating the >> "text-only parallel version" (yes, I have emphasized that this approach is >> misguided) from a Java applet! My main goal has been getting them to >> understand that EVERYTHING they do with Java, by definition -- and >> including the text-only pages, is not accessible! [heavy sigh...] > > Anne L. Pemberton > http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 > http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert > apembert@crosslink.net > Enabling Support Foundation > http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 22 July 1999 11:54:43 UTC