- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 15:39:40 -0700
- To: "Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 03:29 PM 9/25/2000 , Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM wrote: >Could you >imagine requiring all GUI windows programs to have a command line >equivalent in order to be considered accessible? I _like_ command lines but I certainly get your point. ;) >Kynn wrote: > >... but then I can't ever imagine designing a practical site for > >full triple-A compliance anyway. >Amen! Seems that making the www.w3.org/WAI site both practical and >accessible is a daunting task - especially when one or both of the two >definitions could have "bugs". Yes, I think that WCAG 1.0 is a good set of information but a bad implementation plan and the "bugs" are an indication that it is not really "fully implementable." I think this is something that we need to seriously address in WCAG 2.0 before submitting it for approval as a recommendation. If the WAI site itself can't be made "fully accessible" -- triple-A accessible -- without undertaking major effort, sacrificing design considerations, damaging usability, and imposing undue burden, then obviously there are problems with our working definitions. :) -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast http://kynn.com/+on24 What's on my bookshelf? http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 18:53:05 UTC