SL:: "Basically, user-side CSS is not a reasonable solution for the average blind user with limited computer technology." WL: It would seem that whatever server-side or required-of-author accommodation is fully as unreasonable in terms of probability of implementation. I don't think authors are as likely to undertake the sorts of things Scott is recommending as is implied by his proposals. The chance of getting semantics communicated is clearly: under the control of the author; doable by various strategies. If we urge the author to follow certain guidelines, it is possible for everybody to win. What I propose is that we find out if this is an unworkable strategy - so far I've seen nothing to prove that. Scott's letter to incoming freshman might be paraphrased as a letter to Web authors proposing that they must conform to guidelines/universal design vs. learn how to design particular variations for various situations. I'm sure the argument for people reading through a straw would differ from that for people who couldn't read - etc., etc. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.comReceived on Wednesday, 12 January 2000 13:59:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT