- From: jonathan chetwynd <jonathan@signbrowser.free-online.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1999 17:38:02 +0100
- To: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>, "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Naturally you are entitled to your viewpoint however, as someone working in the field, I can assure you this seems like a very poor excuse for inaction. As the www and W3C have been around a while I had hoped you might be refering to research already undertaken. Many media produce materials that are accesible to non-readers, and that is with very little and probably no theory. To what extent do you imagine that these detailed and compelling arguments will be accessible to non specialists, they will not be. A few examples will go a lot further, they will need to be tested, and there will need to be more than one approach, and they will be the tests. http://www2.echo.lu/telematics/disabl/aldict.html is a very interesting example of an expensive piece of EU funded research in email for non-readers, it is taking 3 years, probably longer than the www has had accessible pictures. jay@peepo.com a www for those learning to read. Please send us links to your favourite websites. Our site www.peepo.com is a drive thru. When you see a link of interest, click on it. Move the mouse to slow down. It is a graphical aid to browsing the www. We value your comments.
Received on Monday, 2 August 1999 12:51:10 UTC