- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:14:54 -0500 (EST)
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>, Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
A couple of extra points. The text-only version is not, in general, an accessible version - it is another of the 9 variants that might be useful for some purposes. Which is why WCAG says "an accessible alternative version", not a "text-only version". Having ten versions introduces a potential level of complexity to navigating a site (as a user) that could in itself provide a barrier to use. Charles McCN On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote: Jon Gunderson wrote: > or > 2. Does the information on a website need to be available in at least one > accessible form? Independent of the question of "need", according to the WCAG 1.0, all information must be accessible. You can have 10 forms of the information that offer the *equivalent* functionality, and 9 of them can be inaccessible, as long as the 10th one is accessible (as you point out below). > Option 1 seems to be the current thinking of WAI in general (at least in my > mind) > Option 2 is acknowledged in Web Content with the provision of the text only > page option for complex pages and in User Agent in the documentation > section that says as least one version of the documentation must be accessible. > > Do you think this is the central issue being raised by Scott? > > Jon
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 20:15:00 UTC