- From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:40:07 +0100
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 06:09:27 -0400, Joe Clark wrote: Why are you responding to a message posted to the Interest Group mailing list with one to the Working Group List[1]? Especially given that a search of the archives suggests the person you are responding to isn't subscribed to the Working Group list? > Baseline capabilities have improved considerably since the > publication of WCAG 1.0 in 1999, that's why. WCAG 1.0 authors were > anti-everything, really: Anti-images, anti-tables, anti-JavaScript, > anti-multimedia. Let's get over that, shall we? I'd rather not. I'm quite happy providing content in a way which can be accessed by people who can't, or won't, use browsers capable of coping with the above. I find it unsurprisingly difficult to access websites that depend on large images and complex JavaScript while sitting on the train using the browser built into my phone. Lets continue to treat the term "accessible" as "accessible to as many people as possible, including those who use a browser that supports HTML but not images, scripting, or multimedia". > Nice. Say that to my face sometime and see how I respond. > > > Accessibility involves making as few assumptions about the > > physical realities of others as possible: > > We're talking not about bodies but about user agents. Bodies become rather important when no existing user agent, is able to present the user with the content, and the only theoretical ones demand more processing power then is available to the average user. [1] Yes, I've CCed it back. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 18:39:49 UTC