- From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:49:57 -0400
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
- CC: "'WAI Interest Group (E-mail)'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
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