- From: Tristan Nitot <nitot@netscape.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 17:00:54 +0200
- To: public-evangelist@w3.org
Hi, Isofarro wrote: >I'm working for a UK based financial company. People in here are starting to >wake up about accessibility, > [snip] on a(nother) web accessibility disaster >I've drafted up a discussion paper laying out my position. > >My current paper is sitting on: >http://www.isolani.co.uk/articles/accessibility.html (I've removed the >company name - in case someone gets funny). My argument is essentially that >a standards based approach is a better alternative to creating a fully >accessible website than "adding on accessibility" to an already broken >website. > >Any comments, suggestions and advice will be greatly appreciated. > First, this is a great article. I learned a lot with the "legal history" thing. This may be the kind of ammo to hit the marketeers with. :-) When you mention PDF not being accessible, you may want to be more specific, as it looks like Adobe is making progress in this field see http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/pdfs/pdfaccess.pdf , http://access.adobe.com/ and http://www.pdfzone.com/news/101078.html When you mention that Javascript is needed for navigation, you may link to http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/April/javas.php , which states that 11% of people do not use javascript while browsing. That would make marketeers think, maybe. Oh wait, they decided not to support macs :-( Cheers, --Tristan PS : sometimes I feel I'm not the only Don Quijote around ;-) -- Netscape Technology and Standards evangelist, Europe. http://developer.netscape.com/ : cross-browser techniques. http://www.nitot.com/standards/ : les standards en français. http://mozfr.mozdev.org/ : doc. francaise de Mozilla.
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 11:02:02 UTC