- From: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>
- Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:34:53 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:06:08 +0200, Peter Shikli <pshikli@bizware.com> wrote: > We remediated what we could with the budget available, but what to do > with the rest. One option was to comply to the law by simply >removing > them. The optics of this didn't appeal to us; to deprive sighted users > on behalf of the disabled. This is the heart of the issue. Destroying something of value because it isn't as good as it should be is generally a bad idea. The proposed solution is sub-optimal, but letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is also a bad idea. Thinking through it carefully, and making the best of what you can actually achieve, is generally a good thing. Enabling people to contribute a potential text - which should be reviewed before being added - is also a good thing in this scenario. cheers Chaals -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Sunday, 22 September 2019 10:35:28 UTC