|
|
Posted by Karl Groves on 10/04/07 18:54
Animesh K <animesh1978@gmail.com> wrote in news:fe3chb$2or0$2
@agate.berkeley.edu:
> Chaddy2222 wrote:
>> Hi all, I just found this article on the Target case and thought that
>> a lot of you would be interested.
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071003/wr_nm/target_blind_dc_4
>> --
>> Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>>
>
> OOT, what is a good site to know about accessibility features? I
presume
> w3 must be having something.
A quick Googling could have answered that question. ;-)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Another good source for into: http://www.webaim.org
>
> Are alt and title tags enough? Or something more is needed?
Not even close.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
> Given the number of bugs in IE, are there disability related bugs in
IE?
The "bugs" most often encountered in IE most often have to do with
security and support for web standards. The interface to IE is actually
pretty accessible.
> If yes, how about a lawsuit on IE for not rendering these
> disabled-accessibility features properly?
User agent manufacturers are not to blame for accessibility problems
created by web authors.
Generally speaking, the software on the user's computer will be far more
accessible than the content they encounter on the Web. That's not to say
that desktop software is immune to accessibility problems, but rather
that accessible software is far easier to come by than accessible
websites.
--
Karl Groves
http://www.WebAccessStrategies.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|