Stairs are actually really good example of this problem. Speaking of stairs we mean stairs and nothing else – no ramps – and this is the problem. Definition of stairs doesn’t include ramps. We can build ramps (or elevators) at the same time, but wouldn’t things be easier for widest possible group of people if stairs would automatically include ramps? All the time there is more and more important information of basic things in internet and I believe we can’t be so socially blind that we forget people with disabilities. It is good practise to use alternative paths when possible, but how many will do that extra effort if they don’t have to? When you walk in the streets just count places where there are stairs, but now ramp or any other way to go in for people with wheelchair. Oh.. and don’t forget that accessibility isn’t just for people with disabilities! Stairs example again – think people with baby buggy or luggage. Keeping accessibility in mind won’t harm anyone, but helps lots of people.

PS. I’m not native English speaker so I’m sorry for any mistakes in the text.

I agree with you completely. In practice web applications that offer rich functionality (e.g. gmail) already have to offer alternative paths (“basic mode”) for the disabled. What the W3C needs to do is standardize the practice.

I see a lot of parallels to a recent Penn & Teller episode :)

Staircases aren’t very useful for folks in wheelchairs, and yet they’re still in use everywhere. You seem to be implying that everything in the spec should be inherently accessible. I’d argue that the most pragmatic way to approach accessibility is with an alternate path – as we do in the real world, with a ramp or elevator beside the staircase. I haven’t reviewed the HTML5 spec in any detail, but presume there’s nothing there which stops me from creating a more simplified version of my application which is accessible.

Best,

Matt

I’d rather see enhanced accessibility support for disabled people, as they also deserve access to information. We are not entitled to behave like an elitist group where we can decide who has access to what information and our main goal should be to make the information open to the broadest possible usergroup, even if it means cutting back on the visual aspects.

I haven’t had the time to follow any of this, myself, so I’m not implying that either one is wrong. Just that there seems to be some discordance.