W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Wording of second goal

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 15:17:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906021509470.2065-100000@tux.w3.org>
I am against the change.

The goal is that authors will create accessible content. That could be broken
into several pieces, such as authors can create accessible content (there are
plenty of tools which have yet to meet that goal), authors are assisted to
make accesible content (there are lots of tools that need to achieve that
goal), authors are encouraged to make accessible content (There are a couple
of tools that have approached this one), authors are assisted, encouraged and
helped to repair accessibility problems in existing content, etc. I think
that splitting this out sends us back to the complexity that we are trying to
avoid in the definitions of priority.

At a more fundamental level, if authors are not more likely to create
accessible content than inaccessible content then it would seem to me that
the tool does not help the accessibility of the web. Which seems a Bad Thing

Charles McCN

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com wrote:

  Since we're implicitly allowing the user to disable warnings (with which I
  agree), I would like to change the wording of the first goal from:
  Authors will create accessible content
  Authors can create accessible content
  -- Buce
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 1999 15:18:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC