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

Re: Questions about WCAG 6.3

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:12:30 -0500 (EST)
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
cc: joelsanda@yahoo.com, Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>, Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003251504470.14777-100000@tux.w3.org>
It is true that alternative browsing is on the rise (and a fairly rapid rise
to what is generally expected to be a large part of the audience - 100
million or more in a year or three).

In addition, there is less work required than may seem at first. It is
possible to run javascripts on the server side as well as the client, so you
can write once and implement at both ends of the communication chain, and
there are many javascript features that are actually unnecessary (although
some, such as form validation, are extremely useful, and beneficial to
accesibility when done correctly).

An example of a major site that retooled was the Sydney Olympics website. The
first time I went there it required javascript to enter the site (or some
very elaborate and unpleasant work hacking through the source code and
finding the way in). It now provides straightforward access. In part perhaps
this was because Australian law sets high standards for accessibility, but it
is also important to note that the site developers were able to change the
site from an accessibility nightmare, and did so (at least at the bits I
looked at - I haven't done a formal review).

As developers realise that accessibility is going to be a requirement and
they need to learn about it they will have fewer problems, becuase it will be
part of their ordinary skills in trade, not a specialised area they try to
bolt on afterwards. This changes it from a difficult exercise in reworking a
site to a simple exercise in getting the design right from the beginning.

Just my 5c worth (we no longer have 2c coins in Australia)

Charles McCN

On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, David Poehlman wrote:

  you raise good points, but alternative browsing is on the rise and if they
  want to make money, they will find that they will loose an increasing share
  of it if they don't accomodate.  However, the good news is that there is new
  technology on the way that may make it lest serverly costly but I fear the
  retooling curve may be just as expensive.
  Greate discussion!
Received on Saturday, 25 March 2000 15:12:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:08 UTC