W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Alternative Web sites

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>
Message-Id: <20040624095910.135044EECA@homer.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


Richard Ishida

contact info:

W3C Internationalization:

> -----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
> =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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:35 UTC