- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:44:53 +0100
- 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