Craig, thank you for your response, this is the kind of thing that I am after, however you did quote the most controversial part of me email without the following sentence that slightly moderated it. I do agree that having the web 100% accessible is the goal, but what is the best way of getting there? I assume that we are not there at the moment and rewriting all the content already there is not that practical.

The web is moving into many complex areas of multimedia, for example should youtube be required by law to supply subtitles and voice-overs on all its videos? - maybe not, but where do you draw the line? For example there was a site I visited recently where you could control a dodgeball cannon with a webcam in real-time, firing at people in a warehouse somewhere in England. How would you suggest dealing with that site?

It is clear that a publicly funded website like that for the Olympic Games should be accessible, but are you suggesting that the same rules should apply to a high-school student doing a website for a school project? - again another tough line to draw. The scale of the internet means that the Australian laws will only have a very small impact on the internet as a whole.

Perhaps concentrating on improving assistive technology to cope with the varied state of the internet is a better solution than trying to improve the accessibility of websites. This would also make a lot of the content that is currently inaccessible accessible.

Andy


*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************

Reply via email to