Re: Path to Last Call (was closing various issues)

What I am "trying to say" is that accessibility MUST be a fundamental
concern for design and that in fact, the notion of isolating accessibility
from other mandatory concerns in design is intolerable. Thus the idea that
"well, after all it's only an accessibility issue and since most people
don't give a shit about that", we can proceed without it.

It is in line with the notion that since @summary or @longdesc are seldom or
badly used, there is something wrong with them rather than with those who
don't use them correctly. Its not the wheelchair that makes for
inaccessibility, it's the stairs.In other words "ONLY for accessibility"
should not even be being considered.

It is quite clear that accessibility is regularly put into the category of
"let's get it working first and then we can bolt on accessibility - if we
get around to it." Does anyone here deny that this is a fact? And I didn't
just say "often" or "sometimes", but "regularly".


On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:22 AM, David Singer <> wrote:

> I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.  Are you saying
> you have no sympathy for developers who have to do something 'just for
> accessibility reasons', or you have no sympathy for users who need
> accessibility and don't get it, because they it relies on support which few
> developers implement and they neither see nor test it?
> Or perhaps something else.  I can't tell.
> I think we re-hashed this many times; we're more likely to get good
> accessibility if it is an integral, natural, part of the design, and when
> the system that has bad accessibility is also bad in other respects.  If the
> accessibility provisions are invisible to the average developer, and getting
> them wrong is not perceptible to them, accessibility will suffer, I fear.
> Are you disagreeing with this?

Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 17:53:50 UTC