[w3c-wai-ig] <none>

"We are in definite agreement that we need a good WYSIWYG tool.  I
don't think there are any at the moment, sadly, so compromises are
often necessary."


The only people who do that in my experience are people who have given up
the winning concept. Every person I have ever met who compromised was not
happy with the deal.

I have been watching this develop over the last couple of days, sitting on
my hands to prevent comment.

Failed again.

The best test for accessibility (blindness wise) is to turn the monitor off
and still attempt to navigate the site. If you can still navigate mainstream
websites the odds will be that site was built using HTML.

Does that say anything to anyone? I said as much a couple of weeks back but
it failed to get a rise from anyone maybe I was too esoteric using the
camera as an example

Paul Davis
www.ten-20.com The portal website for disabled people and associated

Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 14:40:30 UTC