- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:44:52 -0700
- To: "m. may" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
- Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 04:09 PM 10/16/00 -0700, m. may wrote:
>a much better-designed system could be built
"Could" could leave the people behind who are already behind enough. If
this sort of effort actually had much chance of happening it would be
wonderful but it is most often pie-in-the-sky. We know that the only way
any of this will actually get done is for there to be a sincere effort to
address the issue of real usability/accessibility but the efforts to date
have caused many of us to behave in fairly knee-jerk terms when some
proposal about what "could" be done is used to eventually do nothing.
I don't doubt that Ray Kurzweil thinks blindness will be "cured" along with
spinal cord severance and that many people think there's better ways to
supply competitively accessible information stuff to PWDs but the context
suggests that these prospects are often cruel hoaxes left on the planning
table as the *real* sites get priority.
I sure hope I'm wrong about all this.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 20:46:29 UTC