bigeasyweb.co.uk ? There is no reason why an accessible site should cause blindness.
On 10/3/07, Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, October 3, 2007 11:18 pm, Chris Wilson wrote: > > I think my point is being missed entirely. I completely support > standards > > and accesability... > > This is patently untrue. You have no concept of accessibility and the > standards and why they exist. > > >Should target improve their site? > > Yes. Should the be required to by a court? No. > > > > It's not required by the court - it's required by law. The court is just > administering the legislation which has been enacted by national > government to help bring about a fully democratic society. > > > > > Which idea of accessability should be imposed? > > Don't you even know this? See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for a clue. > > (aside) Regardless of accessibility issues, target.com is very bad site > and full of coding errors. I wouldn't advise anyone to carry out > financial transactions through it. > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
