At 1/29/2010 06:09 AM, Jason Grant wrote:
I feel there has been LOADS of 'accessibility is a must' type
discussion on this list, but at the same time I feel that there is
loads of arguments which are essentially 'accessibility for the sake
of accessibility'.
My point is that we are heading towards the times where 'relevant
accessibility' is more important than 'accessibility' per se.
Please have a read of my article and comment via email or on the blog itself.
http://www.flexewebs.com/semantix/accessibility-does-not-matter/
Sorry, Jason, but your essay is so poorly thought out and poorly
written that you've given critical readers little to work with.
You're just throwing a cat into a dog pen to watch the fun, and it's
not even a real cat. If you really think there are types of websites
in which accessibility concerns are irrelevant, list or describe
them, but really all you're doing is exposing your own lack of broad,
deep, and empathetic thinking.
When accessibility matters
...
* A company cares about their users
You could have stopped right there.
Glumly,
Paul
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************
