W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Character/Title of "root" documents?

From: Chuck Letourneau <cpl@starlingweb.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 10:41:08 -0400
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20030606102056.00baece0@host.igs.net>
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

But isn't it true that most people (and by extension companies, 
organizations, etc.) are more amenable to doing something if they believe 
(or allow themselves into believe) that the idea or justification came from 
within.  Externally imposed standards or laws always seem to foster more 
grumbling, and thus increased resistance.  While presenting the case the 
way we do seems to promote every organization "reinventing the wheel", I 
suspect that they would do so in any event.

My other concern relates to  William's assertion:

>In the present instance for example, the tone expressed in the "may be 
>important", "might benefit", "may reduce time", etc. is way too 
>"cap-doffing/forelock-tugging". This is also still true in the policy 
>paper and perhaps in the other suite components. There is no longer 
>tenable disagreement in these matters (or won't be by the time we actually 
>publish).

I am being asked to point people to published metrics, research or studies 
that back up the claims we make in our benefits suite.  I am unaware of 
any.  (Can anyone point to such a study?) The fact that "We hold these 
truths to be self-evident..." is no longer cutting it with some of my 
potential clients.

Chuck Letourneau

Starling Access Services
"Access A World Of Possibility"


At 2003-06-06 07:52, William Loughborough wrote:
>Perhaps I'm coming late to the dance, but it seems to me that "building 
>the case for Web Accessibility" isn't actually where we're at.
>
>We've long been there and done that - the case is built and what we're 
>actually about is presenting said case.
>
>Once the policy makers have stuck their oars in and actually begun pulling 
>(and this clearly isn't just a U.S. Section 508 phenomenon any longer) the 
>need isn't to "build a case" but to present what we "experts" have known 
>all along - without "rubbing it in". We are still to a certain extent 
>behaving as if there was some significant (and even defensible?) argument 
>about whether everyone/everywhere should be connected.
>
>In the present instance for example, the tone expressed in the "may be 
>important", "might benefit", "may reduce time", etc. is way too 
>"cap-doffing/forelock-tugging". This is also still true in the policy 
>paper and perhaps in the other suite components. There is no longer 
>tenable disagreement in these matters (or won't be by the time we actually 
>publish).
>
>Fundamentally, the fact that there are actual on-the-books laws (call them 
>regulations or whatever if it suits one's timidity) about this stuff means 
>we don't need to cavil to the bigotry of ableist prejudices/misconceptions 
>any longer. It is the collective will of humanity that for us to all be in 
>this together demands our acknowledging that since we're all members of 
>one another that the principles of the WAI charter deserve forthright 
>presentation rather than the defensive posture currently presented by "it 
>might help you make money after all".
>
>--
>Love.
>
>It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 10:41:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:36 GMT