- From: Jesse McCarthy <mccarthy36@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:29:16 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk> wrote on 2/19/02 1:58:54 AM: >> hack. Of course, the statements quoted need to be evaluated on a case-by- >> case or person-by-person basis. I don't develop for non-visual media, so >> should I care about this? > >If you are in the USA, Australia, or Europe, it is rather difficult not >to be obliged to support non-visual media. > . . . I know (vaguely) about the government regulations. I don't know if my work is within the domain of any such regulations, but the practical reality is that it is a total non-issue for me at present and for the foreseeable future. It would, however, be a big issue with my boss if I started taking a really long time to make sites and changing their design to accomodate blind users that in alll likelihood don't even exist, and certainly exist in no greater than infinitesimal numbers. Context: I work for a company that makes websites for veterinary related companies such as animal hospitals, veterinary professional organizations, etc. It is a pretty significant difference between, say, seeing and being blind. Maybe we should consider the possibility that in order to produce a worthwhile experience for everyone, or anyone, it might require more than a different style sheet to make the same content available to such drastically different demographics of users. Other mediums don't try to pile all of the responsibility onto a single physical object. You can have a traditional book, an audio book, and a braille book that all consist of the same content, but they are three separate, individual objects. Jesse
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 08:56:54 UTC