W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > October 2005

Re: accessibility of W3C site search

From: <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:07 +0100
Message-Id: <200510171907.j9HJ7Zwa069056@ns1.hicom.net>
Cc: site-comments@w3.org, Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>

in response to my question, quote:
>> will the larger 
>> issues addressed in my request also be considered, not just 
>> by the systems team, but by the policy-setting groups within the
>> w3c, and if so, upon which list will that dialogue occur?

Ian Jacobs wrote, quote:
> Please do not set your expectations high that we will be able to make
> coordinated changes to all pages at w3.org any time soon. We are
> planning to make improvements to several portions of the Web site, but
> have no site-wide plan on the table at this time.

with all due respect to the powers-that-be at w3c, i find this answer 
inexcusable - why are there no site-wide plans quote on the table at 
this time unquote?  why is there no site-wide co-ordination, or, at 
the very least, no site-wide accessibility standards for W3C web 
space?  i'm not setting my expectations too high, the w3c has been 
setting them far too low for far too long vis a vis not only 
accessibility, but the consumption of its own dog food.  how can a 
consortium which has made a commitment to accessibility, usability, 
and interoperability NOT have site-wide standards - is that not the 
raison d'etre of the entire w3c excercise?  isn't anything else not 
only a betrayal of tim berners-lee's vision of the web as open to 
and accessible to all, as well as a slap in the face of those who 
have been working assiduously to ensure the accessibility of web 
content, including yourself?  if the w3c can't set standards for 
its own web space, what hope is there that ANYONE ANYWHERE will 
adhere to - or put full credence into - what the w3c publishes in 
contrast to what it practices?

this is a compelling reason to move this thread out of the 
site-comments@w3.org cyber-ghetto and into the w3c's larger fora, 
particularly those which have the ability to set site-wide 
standards that comply FULLY with the fruits of EVERY working 
group in the w3c - i personally have waited over six years for 
these issues to be quote raised unquote outside the ghetto-ized 
accessibility activity within w3c, but despite repeated efforts 
and a good deal of recoding and networking, i have been repeatedly 
fobbed off with excuses, delays, and outright inaction...  when 
will the rest of the w3c take the work of the web accessibility 
initiative seriously and MANDATE that ALL w3c web space comply 
with WAI recommendations, where explicit recommendations exist, 
and work with the WAI on resolving issues where no explicit 
recommendations yet exist?  furthermore, what i am asking be 
implemented at lists.w3.org isn't quote merely unquote the product 
of an accessibility-oriented working group - they are 
part-and-parcel of the HTML4.x and XHTML 1.x recommendations, and 
hence, the failure to incorporate them into every search form 
mounted on w3c web space is not only inexcusable, but 

i'm not asking for the moon and the stars - simply strict 
compliance to w3c-generated standards - yes, the w3c may call them 
recommendations when profferring them to the rest of the world, 
but internally, they should be the glue that binds the entire w3c 
effort into an integrated whole, rather than picked-and-chosen 
piecemeal by each sub-entity of the w3c - either the w3c is an 
integrated whole, working towards a single objective (an 
interoperable, accessible, internationalizable web) or it is 
condemned to be a ghetto-ized organization, which apes the failed 
commercial model that necessitated the formation of the w3c in 
the first place.

as for your comment that the systems team will not be responding 
to this issue or updating the site-comments@w3.org list of their 
progress and slash or plans, why would they not report to the 
list?  why the need for an intermediary?  is not the systems 
team responsible not merely to itself, but to the w3c as a 
whole? do they not serve the w3c as a whole?  are they not 
tasked with implementing w3c recommendations on w3c web space?  
why should they be insulated from the concerns of those who 
actually use the fruits of their labor, especially when they 
have left several of the fruits of the labor of those who 
participate in w3c working and interest groups rotting on the 

gregory j. rosmaita

A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses 
both.      -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, First Innaugural Address (1953)
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
           Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html

Email sent using AnyEmail from http://www.hicom.net
Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 19:07:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:35 UTC