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.