Perhaps one of the biggest problems with accessibility is the lack of affordable assistive technologies (AT)? I think W3 complaint code mixed with some decent features should be all that is required on the developers end.
The government would be better off spending more time and resources on supporting the development of text readers (lynx with a freaky voice) that do not cost $2500 a seat. You will note some the latest version of Jaws can handle junk code pretty well - no excuse for junk code mind you - but there has to be some middle ground. The problem with the WCAG is it's so academic, at least section 508 made an attempt to quantify exactly what makes a site accessible and encourages AT creators along with Dreamweaver-esque CMS developers to conform to something they can understand. Who is encouraging the AT developers to support web standards? Bah.. Jaws is really starting to freak me out. Jesse On 6/29/04 12:49 PM, "Lee Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Section 508 picked and chose which elements they thought was correct without > even attempting to understand the problems faced by assistive technologies. > Section 508 has elements from Priority 2 and Priority 3 while skipping some > elements from Priority 1. Now, that's interesting - they skip required > elements in lieu of lower priority elements. ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
