W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: Kynn's Analysis of CD Web Accessibility

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 12:22:09 -0700
Message-ID: <38EB9261.C0A6E43F@gorge.net>
To: w3c <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
JC:: "The issue of graphical rather than textual browsing has yet to be
addressed, and it is only once this issue of graphical pages is
developed, that it can be successfully achieved."

WL: I think it has been (perhaps at too great a length?) "addressed"
with the apparency of there being essentially NOTHING "developed" other
than a bit of "wouldn't it be nice if..." in the successful achievement
department. Perhaps one reason that the 100k's of years of attempted
pre-text permanent communication gave way to words as text is that the
latter system works better, or at all. In theory it may be that a truly
universal system of sign language has failed in the past because of
bandwidth problems, but we don't seem to be talking about that, but
about pictograms whose shortcomings are painfully obvious. The part I
hate most is that we are ALL meta-CD folks - nobody from the actual
"community" of people with these "disabilities" is taking part (although
I'm beginning to notice some "creeping senility" in myself) - unlike the
case with more "popular" PWDs. I am very suspicious of any information
from "authorities" in these matters except the Down Syndrome kid on TV
who said to someone phoning for information "I'm an authority on Down
Syndrome". No dissing of those who teach/write/theorize in the field,
just that often the "agency" type folks are traditionally the enemy of
their supposed clients. We have the danger of getting to be like the
waiter who asks me what Gregory wants to eat.

Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2000 15:23:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:32 UTC