W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2002

(unknown charset) Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

From: (unknown charset) Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 20:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
To: (unknown charset) Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
cc: (unknown charset) w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0204292032470.28517-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Phill Jenkins wrote:

> >> > ...  but I mention the Linux to
> >> >illustrate that any solutions MUST be OS neutral and not depend on
> >> >proprietary software that is not provided free.
> >>
> >> I don't understand what free has to do meeting the 508 or W3C standards.
> I
> >
> >it does state in 508, that if something is required to view or use a site
> >a link must be provided to allow a download at no additional cost.
> 
> The actual 508 standard only says: [1] "1194.22 (m) When a web page
> requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the
> client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a
> plug-in or applet that complies with 1194.21(a) through (l)."
> Nothing there nor in the rest of the 508 guidance about "no additional
> costs" except for the case of documentation.  So the 508 claim that
> plug-ins must be provided at no additional costs is misinformation. Meet
> the 508 software standards part - yes, free - no.
> 
HOWEVER 28CFR36.301(c) states " a public accomodation shall not impose a
surcharge on a particular individual with a disability or any group of
individuals with disabilities to coover the costs of measures such as the
provision of auxiliiary aids, barrier removal, alternatives to barrier
removal and resonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures
that are required to provide that individual or group with the
nondiscrimanatory treatment required by the Act or this part"


Sounds like free to me!

> >> also don't understand why something must be OS neutral to meet a
> >
> >because a standard cannot be proprietary
> 
> More misinformation.  The 508 standard actually implies the use of
> "proprietary standards when it says: [2] 1194.21 (f) "Textual information
> shall be provided through operating system functions for displaying text.
> The minimum information that shall be made available is text content, text
> input caret location, and text attributes."

I don't read it that way, sounds like it has to be text readable doesn't
say anything about propietary standards or any other standards.

Lynx is a text reader, Windows is not text it is a GUI.

> >> Also if LYNX supported JavaScript, would that end the debate about
> >> JavaScript?
> >so far as I know Lynx does not support JavaScript
> 
> Exactly my point.  So why aren't you (and JavaScript naysayers) putting
> pressure on the Lynx developers to add support for JavaScript?  My point is

and why do you assume that is not being done??  

> that it would be more cost effective to add JavaScript support to Lynx that
> to re-design all the sites that already use JavaScript.  JavaScript is

sounds like "make em see, rather than provide em with accessible formats"
doesn't fly


Bob

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 20:32:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:04 GMT