Re: Scott's Hypothetical Intranet

At 08:02 PM 10/26/1999 -0400, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>i still think that the debate over specific tools is a red herring, and that
>the issue remains one of providing accessible, interoperable content, and that
>the provision of accessible, interoperable content need not be tailored  to the
>lowest common denominator (as i have heard people refer to Lynx in the past)

Well, you and I agree -- but obviously we would because, as I said
earlier, we are part of the Cult of Interoperability. :)  What I'm
try to articulate is that just as no religious beliefs are held
universally by all people in a society, neither do all people believe
as we do that interoperability should be paramount.  Therefore, we
will find that most companies find it perfectly reasonable to provide
accessible Intranet services that may not fit our standards of
interoperability, but do provide legitimate and complete access to
their Intranet for their employees with disabilities.

If they meet the needs of those employees -- and are prepared to
meet the needs of future employees -- then all we can accuse them of
is a bit of short-sightedness in the long run (5-10 years -- but
then who can be sure that our "interoperable" systems will exist
in 5-10 years?), while applauding their ability to make their internal
systems usable by all their employees.

So to answer the original question, "Can an intranet application
mandate the use of one browser and still be accessible?" I think
the answer would have to be "yes."  Is that the best way to do things?
Perhaps not, but deciding otherwise is a business decision, not a
decision purely of principles.

--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
President, Governing Board Member
HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center
  <URL:http://aware.hwg.org/>

Received on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 20:07:52 UTC