Making websites for the blind sounds a lot like 'making music for the deaf'. It can be done and people are doing it, but it just seems like the most inefficient thing to do.
I see that you maybe were alluding to the fact that blind people can't SEE the page, but you ignore that they can READ it with assistance of software/hardware in a variety of ways. The article goes in detail about that.
I like to think of myself of neither of those, but if I have to choose I'd rather be a happy idiot than a miserable provocateur.
> I see that you maybe were alluding to the fact that blind people can't SEE the page, but you ignore that they can READ it with assistance of software/hardware in a variety of ways. The article goes in detail about that.
I noticed that, yeah.
The point that I failed to get across (OK, maybe I was being a provocateur - or maybe I was just too lazy to properly make my point, I don't remember) was that I think that blind people should have a better alternative than a website which was primarily designed as a visual thing, but then made accessible for them as an afterthought.
When you are making a site accessible for blind people, do it well and provide a separate page for them, without the visual and textual cruft. For governmental websites, it might be even appropriate to have a dedicated phone number.
/s
We design buildings with accessibility in mind, why should we not do the same for websites? Blind and visually impaired people have just as much use for the internet as you do.
Edit:
'Making music for the deaf' is a poor use of simile that doesn't really represent the reality of the situation. A more realistic and illuminating analogy would be websites for the visually impaired are like subtitles for the deaf.