- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:46:29 -0500
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:30 AM 3/16/2000 +1100, Jason White wrote: >I think the suggestion to require every web page to include graphics or >other non-textual components is deeply flawed, for although there are many >circumstances in which this would aid comprehension, there are others in >which it would not do so. The guidelines therefore suggest that graphics >be used where these would assist in the comprehension of the material. >There are two areas where I think we can make advances, either in the >guidelines themselves or in the techniques document: If this is so, then the guidelines will remain seriously flawed and could be easily overturned by a court challenge. (The cognitively disabled population itself is not now overly litigious, but their parents/families/guardians have achieved significant accommodations in the schools through litigation. The lesson has been learned.) Can you provide examples of "others" which would not be aided by the inclusion of non-text elements to aide comprehension? I have difficulty imaging what they could be, or why there would be sufficient numbers of such to render the suggestions "deeply flawed". Anne Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2000 09:20:30 UTC