- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 22:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- cc: WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
As I understand it we are writing a technical specification, which describes how to ensure that people can access your content regardless of disability. So if there is some feature which people might use that can break accessibility for some people then we need to describe the circumstances this can happen, what the effects are, and how to avoid them. We do not outlaw anything, we merely point out what effect this can have on users and how to ensure that this does not occur if it is undesirable (or that it does where it is a desirable effect). So I think we (Kynn and I) are saying the same things, but with different perspectives so different phrasing. Cheers Charles On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote: [snip] For examples, advertisers _want_ to distract you from doing other things. To them it -is- a good thing that banner ads draw your attention -- why else are they used? The purpose of the banner ad _is_ to distract the user, or else you don't use a banner ad at all. Sorry if these harsh realities bother some folks, but the "intent of the author" is for that there animated gif to "distract" someone. That is its function in the design. And the author -should- retain the ability to decide which components of the page will actively try to attract attention. [snip] WCAG should not "protect" against the author's intended use of the site. The needs of the user are -obviously- important, but it's not the job of WCAG to say that the user's needs always must come before the site's needs. [snip]
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 22:36:05 UTC