- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:56:08 -0800
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 03:22 PM 3/12/2001 , Anne Pemberton wrote: > I understand your point, but the other side of the coin burns. A few weeks >ago I was in a heated discussion with a webmaster of a government services >site. He maintained that his web site is "accessible" even tho the audience >of the web site is unemployed disabled persons who have graduated high >school or have a strong chance to do so. The site is written at a 12th >grade reading level, which is way too high for the audience. The site of >course is devoid of any illustrations, mark-up, or any reading aids. Yet, >the site is, by guidelines 1.0 P1, "accessible" ... Then it's a poorly written web site. It's one that doesn't know how to write for its audience. And it violates a lot of OTHER checkpoints other than just "write well" in the draft WCAG 2.0. Is it an accessibility error if I am writing a page for Americans and I write it in German? No, it's really a case of content written poorly, no matter what the medium, without any regard for the audience. > Don't throw out the checkpoint. Why not? You described a specific page written for a specific audience, which does not take into account that audience's needs. That does not extrapolate to a general rule, and when we are writing checkpoints, we are writing general rules. --Kynn Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Tel +1 949-567-7006 ________________________________________ ACCESSIBILITY IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Monday, 12 March 2001 22:04:56 UTC