[autokad]

"3% browse with IE9 and 14% have a disability. Why do we only cater for the former? So why do we think it is perfectly acceptable to spend time ensuring that our websites work in IE9, but not that you can navigate them with a keyboard?"

if she is so concerned about making websites accessible for those with impairments, why in the heck did she choose that font?!?

2nd, you are really twisting things. first you take ALL people with disabilities (term used generously), and use that to justify websites having to comply with an issue that effects less than 1% of the population. the vast majority of disabilities falls under visual impairment, and all websites should strive to make them readable.

Then you do the complete opposite to IE. you disregard all the IE versions and focus on just one. in short, you lumped all disabilities to validate your point about one specific part of it and bifurcated the IE market to make it seem smaller to prove your point.

[unreal37]

The original Microsoft research paper she pulls the number "14%" from uses questions like "do you have a visual impairment?" to determine disability. So if you wear glasses or contacts, you're disabled apparently.

[autokad]

agree, and trying to act like the internet is unusable by 14% of the population (all because they have a disability and those programmers and designers are ignoring their plight) raises red flags. over 1/10 people? really?

she claimed she doesn't know much about the process. which makes me wonder why write an article critiquing it then. but i can attest, making web pages usable/readable/etc to as many people as possible is always a huge part of the process.