W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Debunking the need for "text-only" parallel sites

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 11:13:59 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990521111359.008152c0@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: Nick Traenkner <nick@kentinfoworks.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 12:52 PM 5/21/1999 -0400, Nick Traenkner wrote:
>At the beginning of this thread it seemed the problem with "text-only" was
>keeping them up to date.

That's one point, yes.

>Now, I am
>getting the feeling that the issue isn't maintainability- it seems to have
>turned to some nebulous design issue.

It's another issue, too.  I (and others) maintain that properly
done HTML means accessible HTML, and that means no need for a
text-only copy.

>Why isn't a text-only view of information
>(not a text-only copy) which does not use visual or audio data as its core
>elements now considered bad?

Three words:  "Separate. But. Equal."  You will people who very
strongly consider the idea of "ghettoization" of the disabled to
be a worse sin than inaccessible pages.  While I am not quite so
dogmatic about this, I can certainly see the point and I think
there is an implicit assumption that "disabled folks cannot use
the web as well as others can, therefore we need to make special
accomodations for them" and that is insulting when in reality,
NO SPECIAL ACCOMODATIONS ARE NEEDED, JUST PROPER APPLICATION OF
HTML IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Sorry for raising my voice.

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
President, Governing Board Member
HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center
  <URL:http://aware.hwg.org/>
Received on Friday, 21 May 1999 14:16:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:43 GMT