E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Fri, Feb 04 2005 11:25AM
Subject: Alternate Accessible Versions?
No previous message | Next message →

I've changed the subject as I'm divulging from the initial
thread.

Regarding providing a simplified version for accessibility
reasons, how does this open oneself up to charges of discrimination? For
purposes of discussion, let us pretend we have one web page, one css
style for printing, and one css style for accessibility. I'd really like
to understand your perspective!

Regards,

Norman

ORIGINAL THREAD WAS "Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Welcome to the WebAIM
Discussion List"

> I will note, that considering CSS, this could also be
> simply stating that PRINT versions are potentially more
> accessible than the regular web page. Noting prevents you
> from creating a style sheet tailored for a particular
> audience, such as screen readers. Just a thought.

Absolutely. I think that one reason that this discussion is getting a
little messy is that we are having two discussions simultaneously; Print
Versions, and Alternate Accessible Versions (in both cases versus
alternate
Stylesheets)

If you wish to provide a simplified version for accessibility reasons
then (by defenition) you should lable it as such. (And open yourself up
to charges of discrimination in the process.)

If you want to make your site print nicely then you should primarily
concentrate on CSS print presentation. (If you then have a simper page
then the print styles should carry over easily.)

Or have I got this all wrong again?


Mike

From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Feb 07 2005 3:13AM
Subject: Re: Alternate Accessible Versions?
← Previous message | Next message →

>

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Mon, Feb 07 2005 6:10AM
Subject: Re: Alternate Accessible Versions?
← Previous message | Next message →

Mike,

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I think I see my
disconnect.

I was making the assumption that ALL content was accessible, and
that the alternates were equally accessible, but tailored for a specific
purpose (such as printing or specific to an end-user's needs for
accessibility, targeting increased usability for that user.

Alternates are to be used only when the primary content *cannot*
be made accessible. Alternates should not be used as a method to avoid
having to build in accessibility into the primary web content.

Thanks for the discussion,

Norman

From: Cheryl D Wise
Date: Mon, Feb 07 2005 8:25AM
Subject: Re: Alternate Accessible Versions?
← Previous message | Next message →

Ignorance of the law is not and never has been a valid defense and usually
an attempt to comply when the statutes are shall we say "ambiguous" as they
are in the US is far more of a mitigating factor than completely ignoring
it.

Cheryl D. Wise
Certified Professional Web Developer
Microsoft FrontPage MVP
http://wiserways.com
Office: 713-353-0139

From: michael.brockington
Date: Mon, Feb 07 2005 11:04AM
Subject: Re: Alternate Accessible Versions?
← Previous message | No next message

>