Re: accessify.com's review of RNIB relaunch

On 25 Jun, Tim Roberts wrote:

> Firstly, I realise Ian can stick up for himself, but I believe his comments
> were along the same theme as mine. That the RNIB could have achieved much
> more, and should have considering their market is not only blind users.

  So they could.



> Now I will address in a civil manner accusations levelled at Made For All's
> comments. XHTML does contain much inherent accessibility.  The very first

  I am glad you choose to address these items - not accusations - in a
  civil manner. That benefits us all.



> I would be willing to wager that on the vast majority of occasions where a
> developer chose not to worry about accessibility but conform only to XHTML,
> her document would be far more accessible that someone who took neither into
> consideration. Good standards based development takes into account good

  Very well. Let me then set up a hypothetical situation. An author
  writes a document. He does not take into account any accessibility
  issues in particular, but he _does_ follow the grammar and spec of

    (a) HTML 4.01 Strict
    (b) XHTML 1.1

  Our author now publishes both documents on the WWW. In both cases he
  conforms to good standards-based development guidelines, and the
  specifications in question.

  Would you still say that alternative (b) is, in terms of accessibilty,
  better than alternative (a) for the vast majority (and minority) of
  users ?



> XHTML does contain inherent benefits to accessibility.

  I'm sorry, but I have yet to see the proof for this. I know that XHTML
  contains *difficulties* with accessibility when done utterly right,
  i's dotted and t's crossed, but I have not seen a proof that it has an
  inherent *benefit*.

-- 
 -    Tina Holmboe                    Greytower Technologies
   tina@greytower.net                http://www.greytower.net/
   [+46] 0708 557 905

Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 09:52:36 UTC