- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:32:11 -0800
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org (E-mail)" <w3c-waI-gl@w3.org>
At 8:08 PM -0500 3/26/01, Anne Pemberton wrote: >Gregg, > > You make an excellent point! > > As soon as you "forbid" something, you find out that some >disabled group >at an opposite end of some spectrum "needs" what you've forbidden ... we >need to explain the consequences, and let the author decide what is most >appropriate for his/her site. Excellent point -- the body of knowledge for disability access considerations, beyond those of blind people (which are generally well-explored these days), is pretty skimpy. We're -still- in the exploration/discovery process of "what works", and as we see more solutions like Reef's -- which allow you to build an interface for ONE audience without fearing interference with OTHER audiences' interfaces -- we will encounter more and more solutions which will "work" for some people and "not work" for others. Forbidding them outright will cause a lot of problems, in the same way that alternate interfaces stated "as a last resort" cause problems when usable, accessible design is your "first resort"! Absolutes should be avoided, always. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Monday, 26 March 2001 23:37:08 UTC