[WEB4LIB] The TIFF-Hungry

[Thomas Dowling]

>
> The guideline TD cites appears to give organizations an easy out.  So
you
> can't see our webpage?  Install Flash or Shockwave.  You can't see our
> graphics?  Install a TIFF viewer.  Etc.  Will the agency be required to
> prove that a plug-in or similar proprietary viewer was "required?"  What
if
> something else works equally well or better without requiring additional
> plug-ins--wouldn't that be better access?  What if it's just pointless
> frippery, lack of resources, fascination with recent gizmos, etc?  Who
> decides?

As I read it, it's more, "Can't see our webpage?  Follow _this link_ to
install the accessible version of the FooTech Deluxe plug-in..." which at
least avoids the PTO's current dead-end situation: "Go find your own &$%
plug-in and don't complain to us when it doesn't work."  Since agencies
can skip the entire accessibility process if they claim it's an "undue
burden," this probably isn't the way to get them to re-engineer entire
site structures.

Thomas Dowling
OhioLINK - Ohio Library and Information Network
tdowling at ohiolink.edu