So... what do people feel about "separate but equal", as in, a text-only version of a site? I think one should strive for excellence in all areas, so I understand trying to make everything accessible, but I've always been under the impression that a text only version of a site would be easier for things like lynx to browse.
But is that, um, tacky? It just now dawned on me that perhaps having everything generated, and being able to target various run-times (from black and white to flash) isn't "where it's at". Perhaps it should be spent checking that the "same thing" renders good in black and white, low res, with the color green missing, etc.. It boils down to a link somewhere saying "text-only version" and some browser detection, vs. knowing google will pull the right version of a page for someone (for instance). Or are there ways to tell google - oh, I bet there are! Hmmm... eh. Can you even get away with that?: "Here is a plain version, don't complain about flash, because no matter what, that's accessible" type of deal? Been debating it in my head for a bit now, as I've watched the different tech come along... guess the screen-readers are getting pretty sophisticated, and whatnot... there's some specs, (how supported, dunno.)... I've always liked the idea of text only versions for some reason... eh. On 6/13/07, Nick McClure wrote: > We are state and federally funded directly. The University of Kentucky > is a public land grant institution. Most of our money comes from tax > payers and grants. > > Basically if there is a government regulation it applies to us. > > If you are a private company there are certain rules you have to follow > regarding customer accessibility, however they usually only apply to > companies larger than 15 people, and only at physical locations where > the public may be required to visit you. > > In regards to the Internet you are under no obligation to provide an > accessible site unless you provide a public funded service. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:50 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Accessible (Re: Safari on Windows XP and Vista - Never > though > > I'd see the day.) > > > > Right-o. I like the internal stuff too... "you shall use X browser, > if I > > tell > > you to!" I never do... one, I tried to require firefox for... sorta > > worked... > > > > Eh. > > > > Hey, what defines a public institution? (<-- again, at anyone) > > > > I guess if it's an intranet, doesn't matter, but do you have to get > > money from the fed/state, or is there more to it than that, to be > > included in the ADA stuff? Like, does X business, since it sells > > to "the public" have to be Accessible? > > > > I know the more conservative here might have some hard feelings > > towards ADA, but hell, it's ok if it ain't outta hand. I think. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJV Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:236697 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
