W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: Am I off-topic? ( was Section 508 Question on Javascript...)

From: Welna.Sarah <welna@niehs.nih.gov>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:05:24 -0500
Message-ID: <4D693F933DD8D311A18C00E018B0057607647D0D@trollope.niehs.nih.gov>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, "'Jon Hanna'" <jon@spinsol.com>
no, Jon, in my opinion you are not off topic. 

<snip>Another definition of "accessibility" is making sure that
everyone can see the page. </snip>

as a web developer, i consider it to be my job to continue to learn
and apply what ever i've learned, not to stay closed minded.  if that
means having to go back and clean up all those pages i did way back
when (and there are a ton of them) , so that they will be useful to
all people, then so be it.  if the result is that maybe my pages
aren't going to look like they used to, i can deal with that, too....
that's what happens with change. 

Also wanted to note that on the javascript issue, i agree with Paul
Bohman's email:

<snip>Until javascript matures, go ahead and use the onMouseOver menus
as long as the same menu structure is
available in a redundant text format.</snip>


Sarah

Sarah Welna
Web Developer
NIEHS ITSS Contract - 361-5444 ext. 415 -  MD B3-03
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/websmith/
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/


> ----------
> From: 	Jon Hanna[SMTP:jon@spinsol.com]
> Sent: 	2001-Feb-14 10:10 AM
> To: 	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: 	Am I off-topic? ( was Section 508 Question on
> Javascript...)
> 
<snip>
> Another definition of "accessibility" is making sure that everyone
> can see the page. Much of the earliest work on web accessibility was
> predicated on the idea that it doesn't matter if a feature is lost
> to
> a user because of a personal disability or because of the technology
> they are using, they should still be able to use the website.
> 
> So while I do think the main focus of this list should be on
> accessibility wrt. physical or mental disabilities, I don't think
> you
> can claim a site is fully accessible if it doesn't meet the
> requirements of the other definition. Now if the majority opinion of
> this list is that the second definition of accessibility is
> off-topic
> I won't mention it any further (except when discussing WAI policy,
> since I do think the WAI brief should be extended in this regard).
> However I think it is a concern of most people here and a valid
> topic. (oh, and whatever ppl think I'll try to work on shorter mails
> :)
> 
	</snip>
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 15:05:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT