- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:02:08 -0500 (EST)
- To: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Yes, it is absolutely reasonable for a first time visitor to think this. > > No, it is not reasonable for the accessibility community to demand this. A rather absurd statement. > So, once again for the gang: > > The user gets the same 181 books in either case. That's excellent news. What is old news, however, is that the Amazon Access experiment is an arse-backwards idea that can, under easy-to-reproduce conditions, return different results from the real Amazon page. Moreover, there are still things you can do on the real site that you can't on the allegedly-accessible site. (Gold Box, anyone?) It's all been well discussed by now, you know. <http://contenu.nu/article.htm?id=1229#amazonia> <http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,49195,00.html> Amazon has quite enough money and skill to have done things properly. Or to have at least fixed its myriad mistakes-- to have unmuffed it, one might say in the vernacular. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 14:03:25 UTC