- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 16:05:55 -0700
- To: love26@gorge.net
- Cc: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 08:22 p.m. 06/26/98 -0700, William Loughborough wrote: >Section 508 of the Rehab Act requires that federal agencies not buy >inaccessible. It's not much of a reach for that to apply to Web >Authoring Tools *and their output*. If a word processor or whatever has >the "facility" to produce inaccessible code as a by-product of its "save >as markup" feature, it should not be acceptable for federal purchase?? Okay, so I'll be a federal agency. Please define what "accessible" and "inaccessible" HTML code is, so I can know what to buy? This is part of the problem with trying to rely on laws passed by non-technical people that will be applied by non-technical people to a technical issue. You and I can figure out what "inaccessible" means, but what does it mean in practice? Is an editor "accessible" if it provides automatic ALT attributes (such as ALT="image34.jpg 3752 bytes")? What if it "provides support for ALT attributes"? Or does it have to _require_ ALT attributes be used? (And how does that mesh with autogenerated ALTs?) You see, you and I can't even define what "accessible" means, let alone expect a government bureaucrat to make that decision. If someone asks the maker of <X> brand of web software, be that Microsoft or SoftQuad or Netscape or anyone else, "Does this soft- ware produce accessible code?" they will say "Yes, it does", for whatever definition fits their product. And so we're back to square one -- except that now the bureaucrat thinks she's doing a good job on web accessibility, even if she's not! -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org> Vice President, Marketing and Outreach, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org Education & Outreach working group member, Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 1998 18:58:01 UTC