- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:27:24 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
- cc: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Isofarro wrote: > I can certainly see mod_accessibility managing to deal with 80% of > technically inaccessible sites out there (just an application of the 80-20 > rule), and it could go a significant way to making things a bit easier. I think that may be a bit over-optimistic. It cannot do anything about information that isn't there, or is hidden away in Flash, PDF or (in many cases) Javascript, nor can it add intelligent ALTs. In a sense it's at its best when a page is already well-structured: for example, the many long pages at www.w3.org would certainly benefit from the outlining capability. > The drawback mod_accessibility faces is that it is totally dependant on the > markup originating from the inaccessible website. Obviously that's what it > has to do, but it is reliant on this source. So the common GIGO rule applies > all to well. AIUI mod_accessibility runs the markup through a normaliser, > and then performs a series of "simplifications" and "corrections". Basically right, but it's a little more than that - it can fetch some information from elsewhere. But I'd regard its strongest point as being the choice of views it offers. A user who is struggling with a page can switch view at a single click or (if I sort out some accesskeys) keystroke. In some cases, this might alleviate the GIGO problem - though only experience will tell. > I suppose its time for me to get off my lazy behind and give your solution a > go. You certainly have a lot of faith in it, and considering the faith you > have displayed in your other superb efforts, you haven't been wrong yet. :-) Thank you:-) -- Nick Kew
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:27:28 UTC