- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 08:51:52 -0700
- To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
So far as I know, nobody has raised the issue of "private" web sites' accessibility except to point out that they aren't and shouldn't be covered by law. As to alternative formats, this is OK but of course it's a bit like the old "separate but equal" thing in that we get "a whole lot of separate, but not very much equal" when we do that - like in a "text version" that isn't synchronously maintained with the "graphics-rich" version. Although Kynn is right that much of this law is only U.S. applicable it is probable that Oz is right in there and who knows about other entities on Judy's resource list? The Web has an anarchic flair to it but it is governed by protocols and other standards that could be used to further accessibility. As usual it is hard to divorce standards of function from those of content but we're sure trying. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 1998 11:52:18 UTC