- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 07:55:57 -0700
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 06:45 AM 10/13/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Uh, part of the whole point of doing server-side multiple interfaces is
>that the different pages don't _have_ to be held to the same
>standard of accessibility.
If there are pages not "held to the same standard" and no pages "held to
the standard" how is this not a copout loophole? I can fill my server with
inaccessible material and avoid conformance of my efforts because I include
a (claimed) equivalent? I thought the "whole point" of server-side
multiples was to allow choice by the user not to get around a "requirement".
If "separate but equal" seems merely "pithy" it's because you didn't see
what previous versions of that notion produced in our society first-hand. I
can absolutely assure you that this isn't just an inappropriately used
slogan. "there is no need to require that every single interface be equally
accessible to everyone -- only that the mechanism for selecting an
appropriate interface be of the highest level of
accessibility" is what's "_very_ dangerous" because the selection mechanism
is of no use when there's nothing usable to select from.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 10:57:02 UTC