- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 19:45:59 -0800
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
- Cc: <cyns@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 7:39 PM -0500 12/31/01, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >Actually I don't think there is going to be a universal solution where there >are 3, or 4, or two versions of a page that collectively p[roviide full >accessibility. I don't think there's going to be a universal solution where any <n> number of versions can provide "full accessibility", whatever that means. (Note that we're still working on good definitions for "accessibility", let alone full accessibility.) And by <n> I include one. I don't think a single version of a page is going to be more accessible than two (assuming they're built right), and I think there's a good chance two will be more accessible than one. The more ways you express something, the greater the chance that it will reach the audience, if you're doing it right. By offering multiple choices of a web site, especially when it's technically trivial (such as customizing a database-driven web site) you've already increased the odds of any given user falling within the sphere of use of one of your versions. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201 Forthcoming: Teach Yourself CSS in 24 Hours
Received on Monday, 31 December 2001 22:50:12 UTC