<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Osta Soma - Discount Online Pharmacy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://accessify.com/news/2007/02/sarah-hortons-access-by-design-online/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://accessify.com/news/2007/02/sarah-hortons-access-by-design-online/</link>
	<description>Accessibility news: WCAG, WAI, PAS 78 ... and all manner of other weird acronyms and stuff</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 12:11:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Osta Soma - Discount Online Pharmacy</title>
		<link>http://accessify.com/news/2007/02/sarah-hortons-access-by-design-online/comment-page-1/#comment-2663</link>
		<dc:creator>Tomas Caspers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:18:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://accessify.com/news/2007/02/sarah-hortons-access-by-design-online/#comment-2663</guid>
		<description>Umm, no. If this were the year 2000 and we were still in a transitional state where modern browsers and AT were just about to show up and we still had to cater for the Netscape 4 crowd while trying to be as forward-compatible as possible, then I would have agreed: yes, that&#039;s some great ressource.
Fortunately, we&#039;re way beyond this state and I can&#039;t think of a single reason why someone would something like this on the web in the year 2006, full of advice that&#039;s either outdated, has been proven to be wrong in the meantime, or, even worse, has always been wrong, ignores the fact that there is a certain burden on the user to RTFM, and seems to be obsessed with techniques that nobody uses anyway at the time of publication.
C&#039;mon, there&#039;s gotta be some better ressources to point to...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Umm, no. If this were the year 2000 and we were still in a transitional state where modern browsers and AT were just about to show up and we still had to cater for the Netscape 4 crowd while trying to be as forward-compatible as possible, then I would have agreed: yes, that&#8217;s some great ressource.<br />
Fortunately, we&#8217;re way beyond this state and I can&#8217;t think of a single reason why someone would something like this on the web in the year 2006, full of advice that&#8217;s either outdated, has been proven to be wrong in the meantime, or, even worse, has always been wrong, ignores the fact that there is a certain burden on the user to RTFM, and seems to be obsessed with techniques that nobody uses anyway at the time of publication.<br />
C&#8217;mon, there&#8217;s gotta be some better ressources to point to&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

