- 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