Chris Wilson wrote:
> Better yet, since not everyone can see, lets require
> all publications to include a braille copy, all musical
> artists to provide a written transcript
> of ever performance. That would of course be madness...
>
No, not madness. Instead, it would be a good way to bring art to
audiences that might not otherwise know it.
> Why should a different standard be applied to the web?
>
It's not different, anymore than wheelchair ramps outside buildings are
different. I'm not in a wheelchair, but I often use the ramp in
preference to the steps as my left knee is pretty screwed and sometimes
doesn't bend like it should.
As the internet (which is more than the web, remember) becomes not only
ubiquitous but required to function in the modern world, barriers such
as inaccessible websites do truly pose a problem for those who operate
differently. They can't choose to use a different website if the company
at issue is the only purveyor of the product or service that they need.
However, if it _is_ different, then we should apply it because we can,
because it's the right thing to do and because a commercial site open to
more users will generate more sales, just by the law of averages.
mark
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
