notes on latest draft

"...exclude people from using the web." Because it's not always a completely
slammed door how about "...exclude people from making full [or best] use of
the Web." One can still make some use of it even if there's a series of
"image...image..." readings from the screen reader rather than proper alt
text.

"Properly designed websites and web tools can be used by people with
disabilities. However, currently many sites and tools are developed with
accessibility barriers that make it difficult or impossible for some people
to use them."

[Increasingly websites include accessibility as an important component from
the inception of their design to their realization. Some of the still
remaining barriers [hurdles] are:

"Keyboard Input" I still prefer "Alternate Input" which parallels the
previous header "Alternative Text for Images" and in fact because there is
still the possibility of developments of automatic sign language depictions
perhaps that should have been "Alternate Displays" then it could include
"displaying" via speech browsing as well as text alternatives? Both the
input and output need to be considered and their breadth (sip-puff, single
switch, etc.) - not just "keyboard"?? In short "An accessible website does
not rely on the mouse" should have added "...or a keyboard". This is the
place to speak to Device Independence at least in part because very few
people are familiar with the concept that there are other ways to access
computers than a screen and a QWERTY keyboard/mouse - as in "wow, she has no
arms but can enter data in other ways"

"Transcripts for Podcasts" and I still think this is too restrictive because
the podcast might even not be the most frequently encountered example of the
need for transcripts. I continue to be amazed at how many YouTube entries
are actually merely gratuitous video with accompanying audio, as well as
demonstrations which, properly transcribed coul still serve as effective
"how-to" presentations.

A tangent note, not so much for content of this beta rewrite accessibility
page but in some general terms that might be helpful in our decisions about
such content: I have always been quick to chide the tools industry for
almost not trying to deal with ATAG recommendations, so when one does it
might deserve notice. I understand there is reluctance to select a
particular product for focus but the linked-to document "Selecting and Using
Authoring Tools for Web Accessibility" does mention several in places - but
strangely enough not DreamWeaver which is associated with one of WAI's own
stalwarts Matt May who now works for Adobe. I think we might want to reach
out to him and Wendy for some input, as well as Shawn, all of whom have
published books on all this. It is just possible that mentioning such
instructional material might even be useful to the redesigned page under the
rubric of "Other Resources".

Love.






-- 
http://www.boobam.org/webgeezermild.htm