- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:13:32 -0800
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:19 AM 12/30/2000 , Sean B. Palmer wrote: >I'm pretty sure that would be more compehensive than having a little logo >on the bottom of the page: it could link to an EDL statement. You can make >up your own RDF statement, such is the beauty of RDF. It's certainly more comprehensive, but it's far less usable and visible for what we want it to do. The main point of the compliance logo, from our standpoint, is that it is a PR tool which raises awareness of accessibility issues. The secondary function is that it may help people with disabilities recognize if a site is usable by them (although the effectiveness of this function is questionable). In a tertiary sense, it's there as an ego-booster/reward/public recognition for web designers who make their sites accessible. An RDF statement only matches the second function, and it only matches it in _theory_, not practice, as few people with disabilities have hardware or software which processes RDF effectively. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta http://www.reef.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml Unofficial Section 508 Checklist http://kynn.com/+section508
Received on Saturday, 30 December 2000 17:16:33 UTC