W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Amazon Access

From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:44:20 +0200
Message-ID: <004001c2dca2$46a498c0$de33f7c2@laptop>
To: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

From: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Isofarro wrote:
>
> > This is a good example of the disadvantage of having a "text only" copy
of a
> > website for accessibility purposes. Apart from the argument that
text-only
> > versions enforce segregation there is the underlying problem of keeping
two
> > sites up-to-date.
>
> How opportune that you should make this point right now.  This is of
> course an argument in favour of mod_accessibility:-)

Indeed. Although I'm unqualified to comment on mod_accessibility at this
point - I probably need to download a copy and try it out in anger to see
what it can and cannot cater for. It is certainly a useful tool for the
problem it tries to solve -- allowing visitors to access inaccessible sites
(inaccessible with no legal nudge to make it accessible). I'd love to
promote this as a complete solution to the technical aspects of
accessibility problems, but that may probably both oversell and overhype (as
in it solves all accessibility problems) your solution and take away the
responsibility of website owners to be accessible -- in which case to the
detriment of the accessibility ethos as a whole.

I can certainly see mod_accessibility managing to deal with 80% of
technically inaccessible sites out there (just an application of the 80-20
rule), and it could go a significant way to making things a bit easier.

The drawback mod_accessibility faces is that it is totally dependant on the
markup originating from the inaccessible website. Obviously that's what it
has to do, but it is reliant on this source. So the common GIGO rule applies
all to well. AIUI mod_accessibility runs the markup through a normaliser,
and then performs a series of "simplifications" and "corrections".

I suppose its time for me to get off my lazy behind and give your solution a
go. You certainly have a lot of faith in it, and considering the faith you
have displayed in your other superb efforts, you haven't been wrong yet. :-)
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 04:53:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:08 GMT