Re: Taking another round at @summary

Hi Lachlan,

On 2010-01-06, at 7:15 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:

> This should be a clear lesson that government policies should avoid mandating specific technical solutions to problems, as opposed to simply requiring that, for example in this case, complex tables be accompanied by some solution that adequately addresses the accessibility issues, without specifying what that solution must be in all cases.

I'm sorry, but that's a very theoretical point of view that has no bearing in reality. 

Present it that way in a standard (which is what WCAG has done) and for every author out there, you'll end up with different ways to do it (and most of them will be wrong). 

Best proof of this is the actual state of HTML pages all across the web.

I understand and agree that techniques should never be identified directly in the requirements. After all, this is one of the very good things WAI achieved with WCAG 2.0. 

However, there should to be a way to meet halfway: be as clear as possible on the requirements so most pitfalls are avoided wthout actually getting caught in any kind of lock-in.

Best regards,


--
Denis Boudreau,
Président

Coopérative AccessibilitéWeb
1751 rue Richardson, bureau 6111
Montréal (Qc), Canada  H3K 1G6

Téléphone : +1 514.312.3378
Sans frais : +1 877.315.5550
Télécopieur : +1 514.667.2216
dboudreau@accessibiliteweb.com
http://www.accessibiliteweb.com/