Rosemary Ernst writes: >At the risk of blasphemy ... > >I often see accessibility and economics lumped together and I'm not sure it >does much but muddy the water. Martin's last post suggested the old addage: >you get what you pay for. I agree that you get somewhat more if you pay a lot more and that's what bothers me tremendously. I am a member of our campus committee for accessibility and I think the public is not getting its mony's worth when they buy a Windows-based accessible work station. It is not because anybody is out to steal, but it is because the technology is poorly designed and the methods needed to try to work around javascript navigation and other needless complexities smack more of military measures and countermeasures. If one has a web server that uses the tried and tested html navigation as opposed to javascript, the scripting browsers work just fine and so do lynx and other no-scripting browsers. Why not sit down and spell out what does work and try to include that in accessibility specs rather than keep raising the bar every few months and make it necessary to keep shoveling good money after bad to try to keep up with the moving target. If I am going to pay for it, I want it to not break or give me strange results and to not require continuous payments to keep it going and that's what is wrong with the high-maintenance software that exists today. Martin McCormick