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

RE: WAMM! -- I-Can Online

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:27:29 -0500
To: <thatch@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001001bf89ec$bed0b7e0$53fe330a@msde>
Dear Jim et al.,

Respectfully, I disagree.  Lynx quickly revealed problems with the site.
Bobby reveals problems.  The Wave reveals problems.  The W3C Validator
reveals problems.  HomePage reader hardly overcomes the issue of missing ALT
content, even -- if it turns out -- that the missing ALT is only decorative
.GIFs.

I use, and promote, an unambiguous definition for accessibility.  An
accessible site is one that addresses all the WCAG P1 checkpoints.  An
inaccessible site fails to satisfy one or more P1 checkpoints ON ANY PAGE --
NO MATTER HOW "TRIVIAL" THE VIOLATION.  Any other definition gets us onto a
very slippery slope, and into the realm  of judgement calls and opinions.
The definition of "accessible" MUST be independent of the browser and
assistive technology used to render a site.

This is not to say that an "accessible" site can not be improved or made
MORE accessible.  This is not to say that an accessible site is usable by
certain disability populations.  This is not to say that the site content is
any good or even well designed!

If this definition of "accessible" does not work for someone, then I think
the appropriate action on their part is to join the GL working group and
contribute suggestions on how to improve the next version of the WCAG.  It
is extremely counter productive to make "accessible" a moving, nebulous, and
changing target.

Maybe we need a new word or phrase.  "Accessible" has a great variety of
meaning, much of which in the vernacular has nothing to do with disability.
"WCAG P1 Compliant" might be more accurate, but meaningless to most folks.
Personally I am willing to keep up the crusade (tough work) that
"accessible" *means* "accessible to folks with disabilities".

I should also mention that I have heard back from the I-Can Online
webmaster.  The site is in beta, they expect to satisfactorily address all
accessibility concerns by the time the site has its official launch latter
this spring.

Cheers,
Bruce Bailey


> -----Original Message-----
> From: thatch@us.ibm.com [mailto:thatch@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 11:28 AM
> To: Bruce Bailey
> Cc: Web Accessibility Initiative
> Subject: Re: WAMM! -- I-Can Online
>
>
> But the site is quite accessible, at least with Home Page Reader. That
> should be the criterion, not whether or not the P1 checkpoints are
> followed. I would suggest alt="" can replace alternative text that
> duplicates real text.
>
> Jim Thatcher
> IBM Accessibility Center
> www.ibm.com/sns
> HPR Quick Help: http://www.austin.ibm.com/sns/quickreplace.html
> (512)838-0432
>
>
> "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net> on 03/09/2000 09:11:06 AM
>
> To:   "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> cc:
> Subject:  WAMM! -- I-Can Online
>
>
> Just what the world needs.  Another disability-oriented portal site which
> doesn't meet the P1 checkpoints.  Drop them a line!
> http://www.icanonline.net/
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2000 12:30:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:48 GMT