- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:59:10 +0100
- To: "'Roberto Castaldo'" <r.castaldo@iol.it>, "'W3C WAI'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
For what it's worth, BBC Radio 4's weekly program for blind and partially-sighted people carried a feature this week about e-shopping sites in the UK that mentioned this. To listen again, look for "In Touch" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml RI ============ Richard Ishida W3C contact info: http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ W3C Internationalization: http://www.w3.org/International/ > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Castaldo > Sent: 24 June 2004 10:27 > To: 'W3C WAI'; w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > Subject: Alternative Web sites > > > Hi group, > > Yesterday I've read about Tesco prize on web accessibility > http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=tescocomshamesriv1 087899763&area > =news. > > In the article, I read "computers and disability charity > AbilityNet praised Tesco for its alternative web site > www.tesco.com/access which it found to be the only site to > meet the basic web accessibility needs of disabled users in a > survey of the UK's five most prominent supermarkets." > > The web is full of "wai sites" and alternative web sites, and > many of them are text only web sites. > > But, what about WCAG? In the article above there's not one > single word about W3C and the Web standards, and I'm sure all > those kind of sites cannot be considered WCAG compliant; the > checkpoint 11.4 refers to a single alternative page, not to > an entire alternative site. > > Moreover the creation of an alternative web site is, in my > opinion, a good and hateful way to discriminate PWD, and to > highlight the difference between a "normal" user and a "not > normal" one. > > Also in Italy there are a lot of important examples of > alternative web sites that are smuggled as fully WAI > compliant, against the evidence; some of them are even well > done and I find them much more usable (and of course > accessibile) than the "principal" site, but WCAG 1.0 (and 2.0 > too) don't drive developers to have such an approach, and > push them to the opposite > side: one unique usable and accessibile Web site for all Web users. > > Comments about it? > > My best regards, > > > Roberto Castaldo > ----------------------------------- > www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator > IWA/HWG Member > rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org > r.castaldo@iol.it > Mobile 348 3700161 > Icq 178709294 > ----------------------------------- >
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 05:59:10 UTC