- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 19:54:05 -0400
- To: Matt May <mcmay@yahoo.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:38 PM 8/23/01 -0700, Matt May wrote:
>Why? Nobody on this list is arguing that illustration can be beneficial.
Ooops on your grammar .... more than beneficial, it is a necessity ...
>But not for everyone, and in some cases it makes things worse.
This is the problem .... we have to stretch from necessity to nuisance ...
and accommodate everyone. This is do-able ... Put it there for those who
want and need it and let the others turn it off ...
>Animation can be beneficial.
>
>But not for everyone, and in some cases it makes things worse.
But if it's not there, it helps NO ONE!!!!
Put it there for those who want and need it, and let the others turn it
off....
>Any rule related to the human-language content of a document can be
>beneficial.
>
>But not for everyone, and in some cases it makes things worse.
For the third time, put it there for those who want and need it and let the
others turn it off ... If it's not there, it helps NO ONE!!!
Matt, the task is to accommodate all disabilities on the web. This means
that we cannot make guidelines that put obstacles on the web for people
with disabilities. And I really don't think we should tell folks to wait
for their accommodations until we can make that "technology" available to
all ...
Anne
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2001 20:39:51 UTC