W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: ClickZ network article

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:44:53 +0100
Message-ID: <001b01c44d2c$7e5b02d0$6401a8c0@pollux>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

>Because, and is evidanced here many times, accessibility = screen readers.

I often come across the misconception: accessibility = catering for the
"blind guy
in the corner there".

>Why, is this?  Do we send the wrong message by using screen readers as the
>first, and many times, only example of why pages may be inaccessible?

Of course we need to expand our examples when talking about accessibility.
In the vein of the quaint shock tactic of taking away a user's mouse and
asking them
to navigate the site, I often turn people's speakers off and direct them to
their
wonderful corporate video section on their site - which is sorely lacking
transcripts,
captions, etc.

I might be wrong, but I think part of the problem is also that - from what
I've seen,
anyway - organisations such as the RNIB are the most vocal when it comes to
banging the drum of accessibility...thus further strengthening the
perception that it's
all about catering for visually impaired visitors. Maybe part of the
solution would be
for other orgs, like the RNID,  to speak up more with regards to access
needs of
the particular group they represent.

Just rambling thoughts before I've had my cup of coffee...

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 03:44:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC