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

Re: And today's ironic bit of HTML is...

From: Andrew McFarland <andrew.mcfarland@unite.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:46:36 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705083810.009f8a30@127.0.0.1>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

At 01:53 05/07/2002 +0200, Tina Marie Holmboe wrote:
<snip/>
>   I have been doing a few accessibility audits lately, and I admit to 
> seeing
>   a whole lot of things which the authors clearly *believe* are 
> accessible,
>   yet are not.

Can you give us a few examples of code which is believed to be accessible 
but isn't? (I don't think I'm doing anything I shouldn't, but you never 
know....)

>   How does the rest of you feel about the current status: are we moving
>   towards a more accessible web, or are people - not to put too fine a 
> point
>   on it - not giving crap ?

I do a lot of websites for small businesses. Attitudes to usability and 
accessibility vary. Most clients will appreciate that a site is built with 
accessibility in mind, some want a particular inaccessible feature no 
matter what. In the main my clients seem to care, although they may not be 
aware of the issues until we explain it to them.

Andrew

--
Andrew McFarland
UNITE Solutions
http://www.unite.net/
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 03:49:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:05 GMT