W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: And today's ironic bit of HTML is...

From: Andrew McFarland <andrew.mcfarland@unite.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:46:36 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

At 01:53 05/07/2002 +0200, Tina Marie Holmboe wrote:
>   I have been doing a few accessibility audits lately, and I admit to 
> seeing
>   a whole lot of things which the authors clearly *believe* are 
> accessible,
>   yet are not.

Can you give us a few examples of code which is believed to be accessible 
but isn't? (I don't think I'm doing anything I shouldn't, but you never 

>   How does the rest of you feel about the current status: are we moving
>   towards a more accessible web, or are people - not to put too fine a 
> point
>   on it - not giving crap ?

I do a lot of websites for small businesses. Attitudes to usability and 
accessibility vary. Most clients will appreciate that a site is built with 
accessibility in mind, some want a particular inaccessible feature no 
matter what. In the main my clients seem to care, although they may not be 
aware of the issues until we explain it to them.


Andrew McFarland
UNITE Solutions
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 03:49:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:10 UTC