- From: Denise Wood <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 08:30:50 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Cc: charles@w3.org
>I wouold like to dispute a point in this email. It was > suggested that the > Olympics case had no impact, as shown by the inaccessible > site prodced for > the Salt Lake Winter Games. Valid point Charles - however the attitude/change in behavior I was referring to was the Olympics Organising Committee. It is certainly beneficial if a designer/developer learns as a result of legal case, but remember HREOC determined that it was the commissioning body responsible not the developers of the site. Hence my point, we also need to bring about a change in the attitudes of companies and organisations commissioning web sites - not just the designers/developers. >Also, I am participating in this discussion, and I do not think that > legislation is the primary reason why a site should be > accessible - it is > there because there are other good reasons, and it is a good > way to get > people's attention, in my opinion. We have no disagreement here either Charles. My comment in the email to which you are responding was that "I doubt any one contributing to this discussion would regard legislation as the primary reason that a web site should be accessible" and later in my email I stated "From my experience, citing legislation, and even better, referring to specific test cases does at least get people to listen". So on both these points we agree Charles! ------------------------------------------- Denise Dr Denise L Wood Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning) University of South Australia CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays) Fax: (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390 Mob: (0413 648 260) Email: Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au WWW: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?Name=Denise.Wood
Received on Sunday, 13 January 2002 08:31:24 UTC