- From: David Meadows <david@heroes.force9.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 10:10:15 -0000
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think Charles McCathieNevile addresses a frequently overlooked point here: >[...]we must >either innovate and create new tools, or stop people using any tool which >is not currently accessible, in order to provide accessiblity. > >The second option is not viable in the general case. Too often we are told "you can't do that on a web page because it's not accessible". It is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable to create a web page that is inaccessible to a particular group, as long as an alternative method of providing the information to that group is also created. To simply reject a particular design strategy out-of-hand does a potential dis-service to the rest of your audience. To make a non-web analogy, consider access ramps to public building. Yes, sure, it is important to provide them for people who cannot use stairs. But should they replace stairs? No, they should run alongside them. If public buildings removed their stairs and replaced them all with lifts and ramps, then *I* would be disadvantaged, which seems a little unfair. Just my opinion. -- David Meadows [ Technical Writer | Information Developer ] DNRC Minister for Littorasy * david@heroes.force9.co.uk "If you are worried that your children are going to read low-quality information, teach them. Teach them what to read. Teach them how to judge information." -- Tim Berners-Lee
Received on Saturday, 6 March 1999 05:58:55 UTC