- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0700
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On 3/20/12 3:27 PM, David Singer wrote: >> > We're insisting on accessible ingress as well as accessible >> > internal architecture. What use is an accessible restaurant if you can't >> > get inside? > What use is a description of the front door, if I am unable to consume what they actually serve? "Oh, I'm sorry you are starving, but at least you knew that it was a beautiful front door, all lovely blue, with little clouds painted on it." First, that's useful information, it engages the reader, it includes the person whether sighted or non, in the narrative. Second, "as well as accessible internal architecture", means what it says. The door, as well as the inside, should be made available. We're arguing about the doorway at the request of several vendor-developers. I don't particularly know why there is such push-back. It doesn't require much in the way of coding. It's not semantically bloated, it's just one word in a rather large vocabulary. -Charles
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:35:39 UTC