I am very leery of leaving the decision about importance entirely up to
the author. When Gregg spoke of an author claiming that something didn't
merit serious text equivalent materials (because it was "just eye candy"
and not intended to provide significant semantics but only be for the
attractiveness offered blindless people) it rang the kind of bell I hear
in other accessibility cases: "we don't need an elevator, I've never
seen anybody in a wheel chair on the second floor."

A (perhaps specious) argument is that readers who can't see the eye
candy might still have an important use for knowledge about it because
they are Web designers or students of Web design.

Even if 50 blind folks said they didn't care about this stuff, we must
remember that such opinions are less significant than they seem because:
1) they don't know what they're missing; 2) there's a lot of "fashion"
in what's *important*.


Received on Thursday, 10 August 2000 18:33:31 UTC