W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Washington Post editoral: Claims Against Common Sense

From: Shawn Denny <Shawn_Denny@wpi.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:54:00 -0500
Message-ID: <519D0B47A217D2118B4500C04F7942540625CC@GT-Exchg.wpi.org>
To: "'Kelly Ford'" <kford@teleport.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I guess that goes to the heart of the matter . . . convincing the sighted
what is or isn't a luxury for one who is blind. I'm not in the position to
make a good determination as I am not blind. I can understand your point,
though, and personally am working and will work to develop sites that don't
exclude those who use non-visual browsers.

I am very grateful for the WAI effort. At it's essence, it is a return to
the content access parameter of Web development. For the most part, the mass
flocking to designing "cool" visual sites does more damage to the content
than good. The best designs are those that turn data into _information_ for
a patron of a site. That means presenting it in a manner that makes it
accessible, clear and useable. WAI is right on the money!

Shawn "Webdawg" Denny
Information Architect

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kelly Ford [SMTP:kford@teleport.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 17, 1998 2:46 PM
> To:	Shawn Denny; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: Washington Post editoral:  Claims Against Common Sense
> But if you are blind, I say phoning is not the equivalent of reading the
> information for yourself.  There's a big difference in reading for oneself
> versus being read to.  This is not a luxury.
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 15:04:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:02 UTC