"Content providers will only have to meet standards defined by the government/courts. Assistive technology (like screen readers) has no apparent liability at the moment."
The difficulty we have run into is not about standards, but about duplicating the user features (such as expanding a table row, and then expanding again within the expanded information -- done in I-frames) that are made possible through javascript. The sighted can do this easily by clicking on the expand icon (usually a triangle). This is a really great user feature. It allows a user to get to information fast. Try making that accessible using Jaws. And that is just one example. Web 2.0 (as I hate to call it) has layer upon layer of cool user features made possible through Javascript or other similar coding solutions. Imagine a reader trying to make sense of a site built in flex! Or one heavily dependent on widgets! Here is the core of the challenge: The way the ADA guidelines state it, if you are compliant, that means any user, even if using assisted technology, should be able to "accomplish" the same tasks as the non-disabled. In practical terms, this means building a separate, simpler website, if you are trying to do complex transactions. Or else the person would have an experience with Jaws (or any other reader) that would be so frustrating that it might as well be inaccessible. I will be very interested to see how the issue plays out in the courts. Joseph Selbie Founder, CEO Tristream Web Application Design http://www.tristream.com ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe Questions .................. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
