I think it needs to be quite broad and on the ghetoizing effect, the
public perception is already that we "need something special" and
this will reeinforce that detramentall mode of thinking. Interesting
as an exercise in thought along evolutionarly lines, you bet as long
it evolves hugely in the process towards a target which benefits
everyone.
On Jul 20, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Kafka's Daytime wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:37 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
Further ghetoizing us is google now suddenly trying too become the
authority on what is good for us.
This would probably more true if you *had* to use the Google
accessibility search. Perhaps one could look at it as just one more
resource - a help, perhaps, if you're interested - for a particular
search - in winnowing out pages which do not follow guidelines for b/
vi accessibility.
I'n not sure it's 'ghettoizing' anymore than efforts to standardize
accessibility (Section 508 etc.) are 'ghettoizing'.
At the very least, it's certainly an interesting experiment (note:
still under the Google "labs" umbrella). What do we mean exactly when
we say something is or is not accessible to the blind and vi (keeping
in mind that this is a diverse community)? How can we design web
resources universally? What do the Google accessibility search
results really mean? etc., etc. Good for discussion and bringing
attention, no? Hard for me to see where the harm could be.
What do you think?
Joe
