- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 09:52:47 -0700
- To: "jonathan chetwynd" <jay@peepo.com>
- Cc: "Marti" <marti47@MEDIAONE.NET>, "jonathan chetwynd" <jay@peepo.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 01:47 AM 6/8/1999 , jonathan chetwynd wrote: >As I wrote to you a screen reader would be helpful: >1 if everyone had the budget for one, they do not. >2 if sites were written in a way that meant that they started from an >easily understandable base. >3 if sites linked to others of a similiar ability >W3C site does not match this criteria. What about the argument that sites should be written for a specific audience? In this case, the W3C's target audience for the site is a very technical one -- and often technical sites will exclude people who are illiterate and/or cognitively challenged. This is due to the content; I'm not sure how you could graphically represent an HTML specification. Note that the W3C's site is "too technical" for the average non-disabled-in-any-way user, as well as being "too technical" for even the casual web designer (something I've heard many times from members of the HTML Writers Guild). That doesn't mean it's poorly done, however. (And other resources are aimed at those specific target groups, such as the AWARE Center which has a more informal structure and is intended for the "casual web designer" audience.) I think you are asking too much when demanding that a very technical website be "accessible" in this particular way; you might get better results in looking at a general use website that _does_ try to reach all audiences regardless of understanding-level. (Such as, say, Yahoo.) -- 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 Tuesday, 8 June 1999 13:30:48 UTC