W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Bus Case - App 1

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 06:21:42 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>, "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
At 10:24 PM 7/5/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
>Minor updates and rearranging

Sorry to throw another mess on the table without the full means of cleaning 
it up.

Historically, notions such as those expressed (rather well now, I think) in 
the subject appendix come in sets of more than two. We have "increase 
market share" and "improve efficiency" -  I think we should consider 
including one or two more such categories dealing with social and legal 

In the former "right thing to do" aspect we might either link to a proposed 
"feel good about oneself" section Judy mentioned or have something about 
the traditional role of society looking to inclusion for the benefit of 
society, the organization and, not least of all, the included. Of course in 
a "business case" discussion the idea of public relations emerges.

For the latter "it's the law" argument there are both legal and company 
policy considerations. There's the old "programmers are cheaper than 
lawyers" example in which the busy executive is avoiding future interferent 
depositions ("Mr. Green, when did you know that your Website was required 
by law to be accessible") and the dreaded memo from above ("the board of 
directors has issued an ultimatum that...').

These can be almost "throwaways" but their inclusion may be more 
relevant/persuasive than their bloating effect is confusing/densifying. 
Although they are more in the vein of persuading adoption of an 
accessibility policy, they also address aspects of implementation.

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:21:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:48 UTC