- From: <gian@stanleymilford.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 11:35:19 +1100
- TO: apembert@erols.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-Id: <H00000e000225e95.1004315719.tux.sofcom.com.au@MHS>
Anne, Thanks for your comments. And unfortunately I am not yet 100%, but getting there! I have added more comments where necessary. ---- If someone has stylesheets, why would they turn them off ? One way elderly people browse through web sites is by turning off the stylesheets provided by the author and over-riding them with their own. Thus manipulating colour, text size, font etc. Thus if an author creates a site with stylesheets it must be possible to turn these stylesheets off and still be able to browse through the site. I believe this is Checkpoint 6.1 (A). ---- Speech readers are not as readily available as updates to IE, free plug-ins, and other tools, but users who can't read are expected to use them. Users who can't read aren't *expected* to use them as such, they are an aid in browsing. Just like a Seeing Eye Dog costs money to feed etc. a blind person is also expected to outlay some money due to their disability in web browsing (having said this a speech-synthesis screen-reader is available free with later versions of Windows). I agree with you that this is unfortunate, because often these groups of people are in the lower income ranges. I believe accessibility is however dealing with whether or not the information is available to that person. With a screen-reader and an accessible site the information is. ---- Perhaps we need to identify the tools that do not work with specific ATs and set about updating the tools so they can be so used. I agree with you, however we will still need to incorporate the workings of older versions of these tools in the WCAG 2.0. Because the disability audience is of the lower income range I believe we need to consider older versions of tools (OS / browsers / plugins / ATs), because they will tend to stick around for awhile. ---- If Adobe works with all ATs, why not expect the user to have it? Is this not so everywhere? Are we being to US-Centric? This comment applies to all plugins. I don't think you are being too US-centric - you are correct, Adobe is everywhere. However, Adobe is not available on some technical environments. As I said above, the point I believe of accessibility is to ensure that the information in the site is available to that person. If someone is using a text-only browser in Linux, how will they read that PDF? Plugins such as javascripting for mouseovers are device-dependent, and so not available to people who use only a keyboard. Flash does not provide a text equivalent, and often if the user does not have Flash (using Linux, hasn't downloaded it for space/security/firewall reasons) the site is unavailable to them. Using a combination of Flash and javascripting often means a person using a screen-reader cannot access the site at all. I believe this is Checkpoint 6.3 (A) Would be interested to hear what anyone has to say. Cheers, Gian
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 19:35:53 UTC