Re: universality

If this is based on my comments, then I am probably being misinterpreted.

Jonathan had pointed to a site that, as I understood it, was good at
providing accessibility to a specific group of people (at the expense of
certain others). I was not suggesting that this is a good way forward, just
that we need to understand who (if anyone) is not well served by the current
work we are doing, and how to ensure that they will be in the future.

Looking at what is good about a site that helps people more than the current
WAI work, and learning how to do that, is not the same as accepting what is
clearly not accessible in some way about it. I do not believe that
accessibility requires that we divide the world into different groups, and
target our "accessibilty" to one or the other - I think that if we cannot do
better than that then we will have failed.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000, Benjamin J. Simpson wrote:

  "I am very glad to see that the separation of universality and accessibility
  seems to be continuing appace."
  - Jonathan Chetwynd
  
  This is an interesting comment.  Where is the line between making web sites
  accessible and universal?  I suppose there is no harsh line, but how can I
  learn to make my sites accessible without going to extremes?  I'm looking
  for a source to help me better understand this separation.
  
  Benjamin J. Simpson
  Education Associate, Web Development Group
  NASA Ames Research Center
  bsimpson@mail.arc.nasa.gov
  

--
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 13:04:52 UTC