SL:: "How about a web page whose structure has been known to improve the efficiency of some individuals..." WL: Of course I'd like to see many Web pages with such a structure. If usability/accessibility/universality/interoperability are the central focus of the author then "blind" won't be all that big a deal. The notion of some author being aware of and designing specifically for certain populations seems entirely specious - it will never have much effect on anybody's lives. "...stripping graphics..." has never been and will never be a guideline goal - it should be strictly a user event. The "ghetto" and economic arguments are still valid and the guidelines, if they are going to include usability functions (skipovers, etc.) will probably get more commercial validity. If a site that is accessible to PWDs can incontrovertibly be shown as more usable (hence more economically viable) then whatever guidelines produced that result will be <lan=fr>de rigeur</lan> for the design house that conforms. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.comReceived on Thursday, 18 November 1999 10:12:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT