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 11:45:11 +0200
Cc: Catherine Roy <croy@communautique.qc.ca>, "Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com" <ken@clickforhelp.com>, eGovIG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5A9CCD77-C9CA-4BA4-80BE-8E3D0F2703A3@w3.org>
To: "Miguel A. Amutio Gómez" <miguel.amutio@map.es>
Thanks much, Miguel. Eager to integrate it in the doc for others to see.

-- Jose


ISSUE-20

El 20/04/2009, a las 11:41, Miguel A. Amutio Gómez escribió:

> Hi Jose,
>
> I´ll try to send a version on Tuesday.
>
> I´ll try to improve the references to standards and other details  
> thanks to the excellent material delivered at the W3C day in Spain  
> last April 16th at Barcelona.
>
> Best regards,
> Miguel A.
>
> Jose M. Alonso escribió:
>> Hi Catherine,
>>
>> Thanks very much for your comments.
>>
>> I think they are fully in line with my thoughts on the subject.  
>> Besides W3C work, I also work for an institute with a lot of  
>> background on Web Accessibility, so when I started working on eGov  
>> I found myself in many conversations similar to this one.
>>
>> My understanding is that what eGov people usually calls  
>> accessibility is not accessibility in the WAI sense, so to say, but  
>> in the access to information sense as you said; for me this  
>> involves discoverability, bridging the digital divide and  
>> accessibility in the WAI sense. I'd say you already stated this.
>>
>> I'm copying Miguel expecting he will review the new text Ken has  
>> and make necessary changes to the one he has.
>> Miguel, if you could do that, add more pointers as you wish and  
>> send a version, say, by Tuesday, I could add it already to the  
>> editor's draft so people could see and still have a couple days to  
>> comment on it.
>>
>> Best,
>> Jose.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>    W3C/CTIC
>> eGovernment Lead                  http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/
>>
>>
>> El 15/04/2009, a las 22:10, Catherine Roy escribió:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Catherine Roy
>>> Chargée de projets
>>> Communautique
>>> 514.948.6644, poste 222
>>> http://www.communautique.qc.ca
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com wrote:
>>>> I updated the contribution in favor of using availability and  
>>>> mentioned
>>>> interoperability and connectivity.  I think device issues though  
>>>> are not the
>>>> same as interoperability and I point this out..
>>>> http://web20blog.org/2009/04/14/standards-anyone-what-are-governments-respon
>>>> sibilities-in-distributing-content-to-the-social-web-and-non- 
>>>> government-webs
>>>> ites/
>>>>
>>>>    Ken
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
>>>> ]
>>>> On Behalf Of Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com Sent: Wednesday, April  
>>>> 15, 2009 1:08 PM
>>>> To: 'Catherine Roy'; 'eGovIG'
>>>> Subject: RE: Multi-Channel Section First Draft from Ken
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Catehrine.. So basically use digital divide to refer to
>>>> accessibility,interoperability, and connectivity..
>>>> Thanks..  I will make those changes..
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org 
>>>> ]
>>>> On Behalf Of Catherine Roy
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 7:28 PM
>>>> To: Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com; 'eGovIG'
>>>> Subject: Re: Multi-Channel Section First Draft from Ken
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have been following the work of this Working Group through its  
>>>> mailing list and related information sources since its creation  
>>>> last year, though this is my first posting to this list. I would  
>>>> like to comment the content submitted on the multi-channel  
>>>> section. My comments have to do with the question of how  
>>>> Accessibility is being proposed to be defined in this section.
>>>>
>>>> Accessibility has already been well-documented and defined by  
>>>> W3C, through WAI, as well as by other related stake-holders (and  
>>>> I think that so far, the working draft has respected these  
>>>> precedents). I believe that what is being proposed in this  
>>>> section is therefore a problem when it lumps together device  
>>>> (interoperability), bandwidth (connectivity) and access by  
>>>> persons with disabilities (accessibility) within the general  
>>>> concept of Accessibility. Taken together, these concepts should  
>>>> be treated within the concept of universal access or universality  
>>>> (also traditionally defined by W3C).
>>>>
>>>> I also think that it is erroneous to leave out accessibility (as  
>>>> defined by W3C, i.e. catering to the needs of disabled users)  
>>>> when talking about the digital divide. Although the sentence in  
>>>> question talks about how the digital divide is *typically*  
>>>> referred to ("Device and bandwidth issues are typically talked  
>>>> about as the ‘digital divide’") this could be misconstrued as  
>>>> accessibility being ouitside the scope of this issue while, in  
>>>> reality, it is generally widely accepted that accessibility, or  
>>>> lack thereof, is an important component of the digital divide.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Catherine
>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 09:46:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 April 2009 09:46:09 GMT