Re: Accessibility, discrimination, and WCAG 2.0

first, the space issue.  Saying a waste of space was another way of
saying something like providing dead ends or clogging the super highway
with my ill fitting capabilities.  This is not as critical but the point
here is that of knowing.  I am carefull to stress that there are certain
things that if done or not done cause or do not cause x y or z and What
happens once that information has been imparted is up to those who use
or don't use it.  I should use another word than space but cannot think
of one.  I understood your point when you made it about the blind
person.  I also understood the point about people putting up web sites. 
I my self have put up pages for fun.  I don't however want to opt anyone
out of a potential obligation because of a disability.  It seems to me
that we are in contradiction if we provide empowering accessability and
than obviate the need for it by excusing those with disabilities from
providing the same.  Not on fun or personal sites or even dare I say it
inter community sites necessarily but if they know it it might bee good
to use it but on those sites when and if they publish them that will be
of interest to or read by the general populous.

I too have a hard time drawing limits around when and when not to
publish accessably.  If you tell someone they don't have to publish
accessably than it is possible that others will try to draw lines that
make excusing themselves possible.  Many commercial sites for instance
could claim that they are following their printed litterature and thus
need to be exempt from the requirements.  It is their right to make this
claim but Inaccessable is inaccessable.  That helps somewhat because
that cannot be excused away.  
Thanks!
-- 
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
mailto:david.h.poehlman@verizon.net
voice 301-949-7599
end sig.

Received on Sunday, 22 October 2000 07:47:18 UTC