- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:56:08 -0500 (EST)
- To: <goliver@accease.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
In WCAG 1.0 the reason was that this is a general issue which doesn't affect people with disabilities much more than it does everyone else, overall. (56k modems are common in Australia, but 56k connections - i.e. the ISP having a 56k modem running at the other end) are rare. 9600 is something I use a fair bit. But the basic answer is that these are general design issues,which don't have a great impact on disability in particular, as I recall the decisions of the group. cheers Chaals On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 goliver@accease.com wrote: Why don't we cover page size (and the related issue of page design and its impact on page download time) in the guidelines and the resultant impact on accessibility? For example, I was recently faced with a site with several 1mb pages (only 5% of which was images!). The page was virtually impossible to use on my 56.6k modem, never mind anyone who accesses using 9.6, 14.4 or 28.8 (all of which are common in NZ). TIA Graham AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible Phone : +64 9 846 6995 Email : goliver@accease.com -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:56:09 UTC