Late to the party, I know. Isn't that always the way?
* From: J Rodgers
Ontario (where I am) has the Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2001) but it lacks any real teeth and doesn't suggest anything specifi
Provincial-government sites must be "accessible"; this is interpreted as meaning Priority 2. It's easy to find pages that flunk, of course.
I think (not entirely sure) in Canada there is the wild card - Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have heard a few discussions about how inaccessible websites violate people's rights in Canada, but to my knowledge no court cases yet.
None. And you'd start probably with a human-rights complaint (Cf. Maguire).
The other problem of validators is annoying as well. I was sitting in Tim Hortons in Toronto with Joe Clark listening to him go on how validators can't tell you want you have done right, only what you have done wrong, but even then they are inaccurate - when I thought, this is madness (and no it wasn't just because Joe was ranting) and I haven't seen anything in the past year or so to make me think otherwise.
The only time I have sat in a Tim Horton['s] in the last two years was after the Ryerson presentation.
<http://joeclark.org/tus/>
And there is absolutely no way I was talking about "validators"; I'm sure I was talking about automated accessibility testers like Bobby. However, since <span class="paragraph"> and <p> are both valid HTML, even the validator can't always tell you when you're making a mistake.
--
Joe Clark | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
