- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:47:28 -0400
- To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman@clark.net>
- Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
David, Progress is measured many different ways. Certainly, from a dial-up point of view, the new Sailor home page will be found to be counter productive. I expect that user base to speak up for themselves. You and I can be pleased that Sailor and MEC both routinely consider accessibility, even as we can understand that the issue is not their primary concern. Does MEC still have a note about the accessibility of their links? I too like both websites, but from a citizen of Maryland point of view, they fall short in terms of real utility. Compare what we have to, oh, http://www.state.ct.us (yeah Kathleen)! Mind you, I don't have any real concrete suggestions as to how to improve things, I just know that *I* have trouble using either resource effectively, so I imagine most folks have a hard time. Typically, the thing I am looking for just aren't there. Designing useful portals is tough work. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Poehlman [mailto:poehlman@clark.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 11:49 AM > To: Bruce Bailey > Cc: Web Accessibility Initiative > Subject: Re: Request for site review > > > bruce, I agree with you that it will be a bad as you picture it but > devolution was the only word I could come up with when describing the > process from accessable to somewhat inaccessable. along the accessability > continuum, this is devolution. I know of the comitment and appreciate you > setting me streight on who is in charge of who but the fact > remains that the > m e c used to have on their site that they monitor accessability of their > links and sailor was one of those links. > > Hopefully, we can stave off that day because the two sites are > both good and > I'd hate seeing all that work go down the drain.
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 13:50:50 UTC