W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Multi-Channel Section First Draft from Ken

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:40:56 +0200
Cc: Catherine Roy <croy@communautique.qc.ca>, "Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com" <ken@clickforhelp.com>, 'eGovIG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6CA5CEC0-72C6-48D0-BF95-F29B89F8A459@w3.org>
To: "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>
Attaching to ISSUE-20
J.

El 20/04/2009, a las 11:34, Jose M. Alonso escribió:

> 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 09:41:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 April 2009 09:41:32 GMT