- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 14:56:31 -0800
- To: jeffrey pledger <jpledger@mindspring.com>
- Cc: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>, "Waddell, Cynthia" <cynthia.waddell@ci.sj.ca.us>, David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>, Claude Sweet <sweetent@home.com>, WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 02:52 PM 11/26/1999 , jeffrey pledger wrote: > What might be deemed as a compromise solution to the problem you bring up >is a phased approach to making one's site completely accessible. For if >you could put the arguement for not making your multi-media files >accessible, why wouldn't the same arguement work for mot making the web >site accessible for the blind/visually impairred? Because in some cases it might be harder/more work/more expensive to make the web accessible to some groups than to others. For example, ALT text on images is a "poster child" for blind accessibility, and transcripts are the same for deaf accessibility. However, it's easier and less time-consuming (and therefore less expensive) to add ALT text than to add a transcript. Some may wish to argue legal specifics here, and that's fine, but we have to also consider the economic impact of our demands, because that's what the people who make the decisions are going to have to consider as well. -- Kynn Bartlett mailto:kynn@hwg.org President, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org/ AWARE Center Director http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 18:16:45 UTC