Re: accessibility supported

I agree with you, Roger.....
alot of time is bound to be wasted....trying to realise what works best and
what worked then...etc...etc....all we need is an accesibility! how can we
achieve that?

Kind Regards,

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Charles McCathieNevile
<chaals@opera.com>wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:18:01 +0200, Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>  Short article on the need for accessibility regulators to embrace the idea
>> of accessibility supported and recognise that the HTML only
>> perspective of 1999 no longer works.
>>
>
> I don't think that we had an HTML only perspective in 1999, but there were
> a bunch of reasons (some accessibility-related and some frankly not) for
> preferring HTML where feasible in 1999. I think some of those hold today
> (particularly the ones that are not related to accessibility), but I think
> you areright that we need to be more pragmatic.
>
> Both by recognising the place, and the success in some cases, of the
> proprietary alternatives, and by recognising the limits they impose. As
> seems to be the case nearly always, it turns out that a more subtle (which
> really means more complex, and therefore harder to explain to someone
> without the time to listen) approach could give us better results...
>
> Anyway, interesting article. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>    je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>
>


-- 
"When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the
first place."