W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: WCAG and "undue hardship"

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 12:38:36 -0700
Message-ID: <3932C73C.C8D5D35F@gorge.net>
To: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
GG:: "We are currently involved in the evaluation..."

WL: Who's "We"? 

I just don't think that characterizing lynx as "legacy technology" is
any more useful than thinking of UNIX as "old hat". The problems of
JavaScript have to do with standards conformance, proprietary vs. open
standards, interoperability, and lots of other issues relating to simply
paying attention instead of heading up some primrose path of "latest,
coolest, etc." stuff.

In most cases the choices were made to use non-standard constructs by
people who should have known better and the fact that retrofitting is a
bitch while possibly a defense in this matter is still at best specious.
If they are truly talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars cost in
this thing then they should seek better programmers and re-examine their
pricing structure.

Incompetence is not a valid excuse and undue burden doesn't allow for
self-imposed burdens. If this comes off as a flame, so be it. They got
caught polluting the stream and now want to avoid sharing the cost of
the cleanup (full stop.)

-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 29 May 2000 15:39:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:04 GMT