- From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:34:58 +0200
- To: Catherine Roy <croy@communautique.qc.ca>
- Cc: "Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com" <ken@clickforhelp.com>, 'eGovIG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Catherine, I fully agree with your point here. It reminds me of why I started to pushing CTIC and W3C to start this initiative: lack of too many Web basics in government Web practice. I mentioned this before and I'm doing it again. I recommend all to read the small piece Daniel wrote on "White House Open for Questions" at: http://validsites.org/news/somewhat-open-for-questions-some-constructive-criticism Maybe a good deliverable for next phase of this Group's work would be some sort of "meta good practices" on Web applications, taking advantage of all the stuff W3C has been producing over the years and re-packaging it in a way that is more usable and understood by governments so that they e.g. could comply with their own regulations. -- Jose El 18/04/2009, a las 21:51, Catherine Roy escribió: > Hi Ken, > > The clarification was unnecessary as I understood exactly what you > meant and I continue to disagree with this position. Your article is > not "(...) simply stating plainly what already occurs throughout > society and government already" (which is a sweeping generalisation > in itself). It is in fact suggesting policy or measures which > condone less accessibility or "back-door access" for the sake of > wider distribution and this is, in my humble opinion, not the role > of this interest group. In addition to comments I have already > submitted in my previous emails, I respectfully feel that your > article, as it is written now, is subjective and controversial. This > may be suitable material for a blog post but not for a document of > this nature. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > Chargée de projets > Communautique > 514.948.6644, poste 222 > http://www.communautique.qc.ca > > > > Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com wrote: >> Hi Catherine >> I put a clarification in the blog post for you: >> >> It seems some people are misunderstanding this as advocating >> abandoning >> progress in accessibility. I assure you this is not the case. But >> it is >> simply stating plainly what already occurs throughout society and >> government >> already. If you look at multi-lingual issues, not every document >> in the US >> from governments is immediately available in Chinese, or even >> Spanish for >> that matter. EVERYONE is better served by as much government >> information as >> possible being available in some way and that should be the >> priority. It is >> imply not possible to make everything avilable in all possible ways >> but when >> the need arises, on-demand services can supplement the less broad >> methods >> of making information available. I hope this clears it up. >> >> Hope this helps. Ken >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org >> ] >> On Behalf Of Catherine Roy >> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:10 PM >> To: Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com >> Cc: 'eGovIG' >> Subject: Re: Multi-Channel Section First Draft from Ken >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> I am more comfortable with your proposal with regards to replacing >> "accessibility" with "availability" though I still think what y'all >> are talking about is access. I also think that the digital divide >> encompasses more issues than "device", connectivity and >> accessibility (such as gender issues, affordability, culture, etc., >> as evidenced most notably by the enormous work done in the scope of >> WSIS) but I understand that you are probably trying to address >> specific factors. >> >> However, I must say that I am most uncomfortable with the idea of >> limited accessibility for the sake of prioritizing greater >> availability or distribution (such as giving examples of library >> books and making the analogy with on demand access to closed >> captioning). As it stands now and as the field of accessibility >> evolves, I think that these sort of statements could go against >> policies in certain areas with regards to accessibility of online >> content and could even be, in certain cases, percieved as >> discriminatory. Perhaps I misread your article and if so, I >> apologise but in short, I feel that this document should not make >> proposals that could be interpreted as suggesting specific policy >> which could result in limiting access for certain types of >> populations. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> >
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 09:35:57 UTC