- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 18:09:46 -0400
- To: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Thanks for this jim! It cannot be stressed too strongly... quote-There are a number of areas that I see cover it. If you use HTML4.01, and follow the WAI guidelines, there aren't any situations that I can see where an "aural, braille" alternative page can be warranted, HTML4.01 has sufficient mechanisms in it to make the page accessible to that audience. If that page is not accessible then you've failed to use the technology properly. Outside of HTML, alternate representations obviously have their uses, but outside of HTML we don't have the LINK object to provide the alternate representations, and if they were embedded in the page, we can use standard HTML to present the alternate content. I believe it should discouraged not only because of the maintenance issue, but also simply because it's only used by authors who have categorised accessibility, i.e. they've made the page content available to screen readers, when it would've been better if they'd made the content accessible. Jim
Received on Saturday, 6 October 2001 18:09:53 UTC