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

How far?

From: Jason Hinkin <jh@HowthTech.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 09:45:15 +1100
Message-ID: <21B65FEA5184D3118DA600A0C9E1725B043CF2@DEFENDER>
To: Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>


Jason Hinkin
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

I understand the value of that statemant, but how far does a site have to go
to accomodate such a small percentage of the population.  I support disabled
rights, that is why I am on this list.  But some developers are worried
about the limiting of their site look/feel/usability if they are confined to
rules that it must be placed in a certain format.  Upgrading text and sites
is a time consuming process.  How can we asure their right to publish what
they want, and keep our promise to help diabled people surf around the web?

Internet Technologist
Howth Technologies
+61 3 9827 5577
mailto:jh@howthtech.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	love26@gorge.net [SMTP:love26@gorge.net]
> Sent:	Friday, 25 February 2000 9:16
> To:	Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List
> Subject:	Re: is this the best approach?
> 
> GR:: "...ensure that (a) accessibility is addressed wherever and
> whenever appropriate, and (b) that the document is (at the very least)
> single-A compliant..."
> 
> WL: On the call there was an attempt made to separate the accessibility
> of the document from its content. I think that in the case of a tutorial
> that the content itself comes under examination for properly attending
> to accessibility (certainly in the case of Authoring Tool documentation)
> and that if a site is JUST a tutorial that it should comply in order to
> conform. I'm not sure off-hand what priority level this is.
> 
> -- 
> Love.
>             ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
> http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2000 17:40:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT