Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'

At 10:51 AM +0000 2001/10/24, Jim Ley wrote:
>"Anne Pemberton":
>>  No minimum conformance will be acceptable without inclusion of the
>needs of
>>  the cognitively and reading disabled population. It makes no difference
>>  whether a blind person is faced with a page of graphics without alt
>text or
>>  a reading disabled person is faced with a page of text without
>>  illustrations, they are equally inaccessible to the respective users.
>>  Either situation presents as "no access" to the user.
>
>>  >6. The Guideline must be easy to implement
>>  >
>>  >7. The Guideline must be easily verifiable (this is
>>  >part of the Draft Requirements)
>
>Such requirements would generally fail these rquirements, so much
>material is certainly not easy to illustrate, and how do you propose to
>test for it?

I'm confused, are we actually arguing that we should exclude groups
from participating in Internet use because it's too hard for us to
figure out how to make things better for them?

Sometimes you people really should be ashamed of yourselves.

--Kynn


-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
________________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
________________________________________
http://www.reef.com

Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 02:49:50 UTC