Breton Slivka wrote:
Here, I used the phrase "in a sense" perhaps, to try to capture more
meaning than it was capable of holding. There are, as you have pointed
out two ways of "knowing" accessibility. You can know how to build
your site such that it "should" be accessable according to the
standards which assume that all user agents are following the
standards.
Then also there's the more difficult and expensive kind of
accessability where you actually test whether your target users can
really use the site or not in reality rather than just the theoretical
scenario that the standards describe.
When I said "in a sense" I meant the first kind. The kind that is
trivially easy once you know all the techniques and standards. It is
particularly easy in comparison to the second kind. The first kind is
still seen as difficult and costly to many developers who may not even
be aware of the second kind. Nevertheless, "accessibility" of the
first kind is worth doing, and is trivially easy once you know how to
do it.
Accessibility of the second kind is also worth doing. But in a world
where many developer cultures have not even come to grips with
accessibility of the first kind, accessibility of the second kind is a
tough sell.
Absolutely! And not only that, 'accessibility' can often vary - what
suits one person's needs often doesn't apply in a different case. As you
say : not easy!
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
