- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:09:24 -0400
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- Cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
William, Yes, indeed! I remember some of the tales I heard about the laws for handicapped housing, which resulted in a whole buiding in NYC built with "accessible bathrooms" that had doorways too small to let the wheel chair into the accessible fixtures ... or the curb cuts built at the school I used to work for, one of which smashed the user into a structural pole at the top! Subjective evaluation cannot soon be replaced completely by all-machine examinations .... Just like the points raised by Bruce this morning ... suggesting that the guidelines will have to dictate some "reading level" in order to enforce "clear and simple language".... I hesitate to dictate a somewhat arbitrary "number", but he's suggesting it's necessary in order to bring such users to the table... Likewise with illustrations ... I wouldn't want to say how many graphics per page indicate it's properly "illustrated", but will we have to? Anne At 06:10 AM 4/2/01 -0700, William Loughborough wrote: >At 02:58 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >>most of the things that are critical for accessibility cannot be done >>without some subjective judgement. It is next to useless to know simply >>that there is some alternative equivalent without knowing that it actually >>provides something equivalent. > >Case closed! > >-- >Love. > ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE > > Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 18:04:35 UTC