- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 08:12:53 -0800
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 06:34 AM 12/22/2000 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >This is what I was trying to address with the following example in X.4 >quote >Positive Example: Two sites created from common data through different transformations, PROVIDED that the transformation rules are publically visible for validation. >unquote > >In other words, its fine to provide different presentations to different hardware/software/environments/preferences if the orginal data, and the rules creating the different presentations are available to the tester. In fact, to the extent the rules are machine readable, much or all of the validation could be done automatically. What if that ruleset is part of a company's strategic advantage and they do not wish to publicly release their intellectual property relating to how their rules engine functions? I don't agree that a company needs to release the internal workings of their web pages just to make it easy for an automated tester script to confirm certain things. I feel that has little to do with actual accessibility. Which groups of people with disabilities have their access to content increased by such a rule? (Answer: none.) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ What's on my bookshelf? http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 11:32:08 UTC