- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:56:13 -0500
- To: <webdirector@commarts.com>
- Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <klucas@resource.com>, <webmaster@victoriassecret.com>
Dear Editor, Your review (and selection of site of the week) of the Victoria's Secret site caused quite a stir on the "Web Accessible Initiative" interest group mailing list. You can find our original message posted at URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2000JanMar/0447.html The discussion was over your article posted at URL: http://www.commarts.com/interactive/sow_main.html The problem is that your author wrote that the VS site was "accessible". What does she mean by that term? In the vernacular, "accessible" has become something of a buzz word that is free of semantic content. In the disability rights community, we take accessible to mean "functional for people who rely upon assistive technology". The VS site clearly does NOT fall into this category. Specifically, an "accessible" web site is one that satisfies the Priority 1 checkpoints of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The full (detailed) guidelines can be found at URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ The quick-and-easy "top ten" version is at URL: http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/#QuickTips Please avoid the term "accessible" unless you mean it in this context. I would encourage you to report on accessibility (for persons with disabilities) and formal validity as part of your routine site review process. Please let me know if you would like further elaboration on these points. Sincerely, Bruce Bailey Webmaster for the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Division of Rehabilitation Services (DORS) http://www.dors.state.md.us/ 410/554-9211
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2000 14:58:42 UTC