Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle

> So, bottom line: are we going to focus on accessibilty now and package up 
> considerations X later?
> Yes or No?

OK I'm a newcomer to this forum, and am missing out on the background
to your question, so feel free to ignore me.

But I went through AERT (as published at <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT>)
just a few hours ago with a view to posting here, and planning the next
level of accessibility checking for Site Valet.  On several points, it
seems that AERT is - or could be - unnecessarily restrictive, in that
it condemns a legitimate but often-abused technique.  I'll post my
comments soon, and include some examples.

As to your question: it seems to me that accessibility cannot be
well-served by antagonising authors.  This argues for always taking
Consideration X seriously, and and accommodating it wherever reasonable
(I think some of the more extreme examples you suggested fall down on
the reasonableness test).

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish different types of case
where Consideration X may arise.  I'm particularly concerned that
accessibility tools shouldn't be so restrictive as to be
marginalised in cases where authors are making an informed choice.

* Education - the author has no idea that a construct is a problem.
	Guidelines and software tools have an important role.

* Laziness and stupidity - the author can't be bothered.
	Not too much anyone can do - short of legislation.

* Diplomatic considerations - "don't tell us how to do it".
	????
	I mention this because your reference to Scott Adams seems
	rather ironic: his reaction is very much the kind of thing
	he is famous for lampooning!

* Choice - the author sees a good reason to use a construct that AERT
  warns against, and that if used well will not present a problem.
	We should avoid making the "Accessibility" choice seem
	unreasonable or unduly restrictive.

Sorry, I'm rambling - perhaps someone can give me a URL for a past
thread where this has all been discussed to death before?


-- 
Nick Kew

Received on Saturday, 30 December 2000 06:13:05 UTC