KenB - 11:34 pm on Sep 14, 2006 (gmt 0) The issue isn't access, the user had access to the site, the problem was that his browser didn't function as he would have liked it to. No barriers were put in place.
Actually no.... think about the techincal aspect of it all. To make the HTML inaccessible one has to put some barriers in place as ANY website that has a DNS lookup is accessable to the public. The person in question has the same access to the HTML as any of us.
Yes barriers were put in place. For example, graphics were used in place of text based buttons (e.g. their "add to cart" buttons) with no ALT attribute being provided. In other words they replaced plain text that would be totally accessible with a graphic AND omitted an alternative plain text equivalent as is required by W3C specifications. There is no substantive reason for this graphic only an eye candy stylistic desire. Basically they intentionally sacrificed function for form and then ignored the features available to recover the lost function. This is no different then the earlier example of eliminating curb cut outs because it makes the front of the store look better.
The issue isn't access, the user had access to the site, the problem was that his browser didn't function as he would have liked it to.
No barriers were put in place.