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 10:03:48 -0500
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <009501c2e25f$6b2c48b0$6501a8c0@handsontech>

Thanks, that is wahat I was aiming at.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Voelcker" <asp@tvw.net>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Is it acceptable to provide two versions of a site to work
around an accessibility problem?



Hi David,

Thanks for the further comments.

I could use 'wcag compliant', but doubt that many people will know what it
means.

I think that I might just call the link 'full screen', 'flexible layout' or
something along those lines and get the link to change the styles so that
the
layout is a flexible full width design.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:49:16 -0500, David Poehlman wrote:
> 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?

Cheers,

Julian Voelcker
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 10:05:30 GMT

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