On Thursday 25 August 2005 21:54, Craig Bradney wrote:
Not that its a requirement for me at all, but how about those with very poor sight. There are plenty that can read with high zoom levels, and even do a lot of graphics work if they can zoom in or stick their faces to the screen. Zooming and other images is a hard one to deal with but still, might be a suggestion.
Agreed. Accessibility isn't about giving access to people who might be in your target market. It's about not excluding people from society unnecessarily. Just as we shouldn't disregard someone's right to watch a football match or to discuss a football match because they can't personally play with their disability, so we shouldn't disregard any potential interest in the Inkscape product or community, even if the current product might be unusable to them.
For all we know, a disabled user could have a dream to revolutionise art applications' user interfaces in a way that makes ability or disability irrelevant. At the very least, they're entitled to know what they're missing, and that means letting them read the content about the product, even if they can't USE the product as-is.
Also, accessible sites tend to be much more usable for non-standard browsers like PDA micro-browsers, text-based browsers, etc. No point discouraging potential users who happen to be in text-based IRC at the time they hear about inkscape, if there's no need to do so.
I think we should aim for WCAG-AA *at least*.