Une canne blanche sur le net
A few months ago, two major belgian newspapers launched an "accessible" version of their respective websites. In their own words : the site has been rewritten according to rigorous accessibility guidelines. Great... now maybe they will - at last - figure out that they paid twice for an awful job since :
- The full blown ("unaccessible") version of their site is pure tagsoup with frames for one and an applet for the other...
- The "accessible" version is incredibly ugly and just ghettoize people with disabilities in a scaled down web experience. The people responsible for this obviously have no clue about the accessibility benefits of web standards. Not to mention that the "accessible" mark-up is far from perfect... access keys, anyone?
I wonder who are the "accessibility" experts they hired to produce such a nonsense... do they ever heard about the "one markup fits all" paradigm? Why the hell maintaining two versions when a single, carefully designed site can be both accessible and good-looking?

