- From: Mark Gristock <mark.gristock@jkd.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:31:35 +0100
- To: "david poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>Since there are in fact, many examples now of different types of sites that are usable by people with disabilities and assistive technologies, the defense of confusion in court may be nullified. This is the issue. You cannot separate accessibility and usability. If you can tick every WCAG box and deliver a site that is fundamentally unusable - in a practical rather than technical sense) by an AT or browser, then that is a failure to deliver an accessible site. The level of accessibility is determined by the proportion of users able to use the site - not the degree of compliance with non-existent standards. There is nothing you can do about this unless you are prepared to say 'all sites must do this or they are inaccessible'. And when the people on this list can't agree what compliance with guideline 1.1 of WCAG 1.0 means in practice, I don't believe that we this either achievable or desirable. _____________________________________________________________________ VirusChecked for the Incepta Group plc _____________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 12:35:48 UTC