- From: <goliver@accease.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 11:48:22 -0800 (PST)
- To: kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com
- Cc: wendy@w3.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Kia Ora Kynn I am sympathetic to this type of argument but don't agree with it in this case. Content must be tailored to an audience or audiences otherwise how is it going to be effective? I believe encouraging content providers to focus on intended audience will be beneficial because. 1. It is a basic rule of communication to consider intended audience and for us to ignore that in our document may help to undermine our credibility. 2. It will help to focus content providers on who they are excluding. For example, Government can't exclude anyone in its provision of services on the web, can it? But, a commercial organisation can and will. It seems to me a fundamental issue that 'intended audience' is too often ignored on the web and that is why we get so many inaccessible sites. Cheers Graham On Sat, 26 January 2002, kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com wrote > > Summarizing information which is not new: > > Another danger of emphasizing the "audience" is that web developers > are notoriously bad at knowing their audiences outside of an Intranet/ > Extranet/login-for-access situation, and many times you will find > people saying, "oh -that's- not my _intended_ audience, therefore i > don't have to write for -them-." > > Such arguments invariably prove to be harmful to general access by a > broad audience. Therefore it's appropriate to speak of "content", > in this situation. > > --Kynn AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible Phone : +64 9 846 6995 Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Sunday, 27 January 2002 14:48:59 UTC