- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 10:43:11 -0500
- To: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Kynn asks: >Len, are you trying to discredit the idea by pointing out possible >problems? Are you hoping to see any reference to the idea removed >from the discussion and banned from WCAG 2.0? >I realize that you and others may be content to bury your heads >in the sand and adopt a completely dogmatic approach -- but please >realize that those of us who live in the real world <snip> Actually, I've given several concrete examples of cases where I support the idea of having different interfaces available to different groups, e.g. in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000OctDec/0334.html a post you read and responded to BTW (in Jekyl mode). There are also cases where there are problems especially if the interfaces are extremely different, e.g. as I describe in the relay service example you're now reacting to (in Hyde mode) Note this is a real world example, a production system providing AT&T's relay service across the US. Point is, we need guidelines that weigh advantages and problems of different approaches Do you agree? Whether you do or not, would you offer some concrete examples where the need alternative interfaces are or are not compelling? Len -- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple University (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY) http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday mailto:kasday@acm.org Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
Received on Monday, 6 November 2000 10:43:49 UTC