- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:28:21 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Patrick Lauke wrote: > The part concerning accessibility supported technologies should be > fairly stable in the current draft. You can already work towards WCAG WCAG compliance is often a contractual requirement (typically by universities and public services). I believe, in some countries, it is enshrined in legislation. In these circumstances, people will be reluctant to accept anything other than the existing, approved, standards. > 2.0, as long as you reference exactly which version / draft you're > referring to. Incidentally, I take the view that accessibility should be considered as universal accessibility, and in the UK, I think that is government policy ("the digital divide") even if there is no legislation. It is, however, difficult for businesses, who are reluctant to provide accessibility for the disabled without legislation, and certainly don't want to help people who can't afford their products, and the W3C is an industry consortium. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 07:29:04 UTC