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

Re: Is it acceptable to provide two versions of a site to work around an accessibility problem?

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:49:16 -0500
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <005e01c2e254$f237ab20$6501a8c0@handsontech>

That's a good question, the main thing though is that it is not a text only
page for two reasons at least.  one is that it separates us out as is
mentioned in another message and the other is that text only is not too
accessible.  call it the universal link or the alternate link.  I'm not sure
what to call it.  It is certainly not non graphical some call them low
bandwidth but only if that is the case.
how about wcag compliant version link?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Is it acceptable to provide two versions of a site to work
around an accessibility problem?



Hi David,

OK, so you are suggesting doing the two versions, but rather than use a
'Text
Only' link call it something like 'Accessibility version'.

What's the best wording for it?

On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:23:41 -0500, David Poehlman wrote:
> I would not use nor call it a text only page.  I would if the client
insists
> charge extra for the required duplication and code the page so that it
works
> correctly and link to it with an accessible page link if need be and leave
> the other the way the client wants it to be.  In this way, everyone gets
the
> full functionality of the page.

Cheers,

Julian Voelcker
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 08:50:26 GMT

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