- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:32:16 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>, public-html@w3.org
Le 27 août 2008 à 07:30, Ian Hickson a écrit : > The point of my example is that even if the accessibility community > had > unlimited funds and could install all manner of hardware in this > hypothetical restaurant, they _still_ wouldn't wire up the paintings > to > announce themselves to blind patrons. Equivalently, they wouldn't > wire up > the radio to display the lyrics and sheet music of the songs being > played > for the benefit of deaf users. Both the painting and the background > music > are purely decorative and not in any way "content" that a user needs > or > even wants if he lacks the relevant sensory capabilities. The user is not forced to, but may want to have access. That's the difference. Here in your reasoning you imply that is forced to the user. 1. Nothing available. User is screwed. Freedom 0 2. Everything is forced to the user. User is screwed. Freedom 0 3. Everything is available. User is happy, he/she can choose. Freedom 1 -- Karl Dubost - W3C http://www.w3.org/QA/ Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 01:32:53 UTC