- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:07:49 -0500 (EST)
- To: Paul Davis <paul@ten-20.com>
- cc: <goliver@accease.com>, John Parkin <jbp@globalnet.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
There are sites that do this (Joanthan Chetwynd's peepo is one which is appreciated, because although people find it confusing to use as a search engine at first, it can be learned and has the right kind of cues). The best examples of these (things like peepo, mencap - http://www.mencap.co.uk - and others) also manage accessibility in terms of text equivalents, etc, which seems like a sensible approach to me. It is not that far from what the "graphic-rich commercial sites" we try to make accessible need to do... cheers Chaals On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Paul Davis wrote: Interesting conundrum here, I have been approached by Wandsworth social services to produce a website for people with severe learning disabilities (as opposed to cognitive ones), most of which it seems at first glance involves the use of images and sounds instead of words, I suppose the position could be taken that the website would only be of interest to the targeted group in question and as such, is it then a required need to be accessible in the normally accepted terms?
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2002 12:07:53 UTC