Hi David,

It's always funny how two people can read the same thing and draw two 
conclusions.

To me, Mark Gristock pointed out that if there was a publicised process 
freely or possibly affordably available, then more sites would use the 
system. Thus supporting your recent fervent posts on the list by using a 
broadly available system. I thought that it could be something 
constructive that someone on the list might like to get behind - to 
create something positive without making new and experienced developers 
alike jump through hoops.


Whereas you saw the attack on the 'not-for-profits' and if that's what 
you were pointing to with the 'disingenuous' remark, then I understand 
completely. Unfortunately, as I am not privy to Mr Gristock's 
discussions or research on the subject, I would be drawing a very long 
bow indeed if I publicly commented on how sincere the remarks are or 
cast aspersions on his skills or character. I'm guessing you have done a 
lot more research into him than I, as this is obviously something you 
are very active in in the position you hold (that you mentioned earlier).

Sorry if you thought I was pointing at 'nasty not-for-profits', I tend 
to concentrate on solutions rather than the rhetoric that precede them 
in media articles these days. It's just the way I read.

Cheers,
Trent

David Goldstein wrote:
> Hi Trent,
>
> Good point. I agree that in general not-for-profits do not spend enough time sharing accessibility to the public, and what's needed to be done. But there's always the issue of how to allocate resources and what you consider the organisation's priorities within a limited budget.
>
> However it's a bit disingenuous for this so-called expert on usability to say "Building dull, technically compliant websites is easy but building commercially successful sites that are also accessible is not."
>
> If someone wants a website that has all the bells and whistles and flash and what-have-you, this is fine. The developer just needs to provide an alternate version that is updated as is the bells and whistles version. Besides, not everyone has all the bells and whistles, so in reality, for accessibility or otherwise, an alternate version will be needed.
>
> Cheers
> David
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "trent&#167;sos.net.au" <trent§sos.net.au>
> To: .au DNS Discussion List <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 December, 2006 11:34:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNS] 'Most websites' failing disabled
>
>
> Interesting reading David, thank you.
>
> Of particular interest was the "Time to talk" section of that same piece.
>
> Cheers,
> Trent
>
> David Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This is just to follow-on from the recent discussion. And yes, I know it's not DNS, but just noting the problem.
>>
>> Cheers
>> David
>>
>> 'Most websites' failing disabled
>> Most (97%) of the leading websites around the world are failing to provide the most basic accessibility standards for people with disabilities.
>>
>> The survey was across 5 sectors in 20 countries.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6210068.stm
>>  
>> ---------
>>  
>> David Goldstein
>> address: 4/3 Abbott Street
>> COOGEE NSW 2034
>> AUSTRALIA
>> email: Goldstein_David &#167;yahoo.com.au
>> phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home)
>>  
>> "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery
>>
>> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>>
>>   
>>     
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
>
>