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

RE: Text equivalents

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:26:58 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, "Jonathan Chetwynd" <jay@peepo.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
Cc: "Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 02:09 PM 3/15/2000 -0500, Bruce Bailey wrote:
>I think Gregory's point is that we should be looking for model pages/sites
>that meet your and Jonathan's expectations that are *ALSO* P1 compliant.
>There is not much virtue to addressing cognitive issues if such
>accommodations break the pages for other users.

Bruce, some part of the point Jonathon and I are making is that it may not
yet be possible to both comply to the current guidelines and accommodate
the needs of those who got to the breakfast table last. I could much more
easily point out pages which are "P1 compliant" that are useless to most of
the disabled folks (the cognitively disabled, remember, are present in
greater numbers in the population than those who would perceive such pages
as "broken", and even greater number than the "rich folks" whose toys are
touted as deserving of accommodation. Certainly, this discussion group
should consider the needs of ALL disabled folks equally, not giving
preference to one group or another. 

I'm not sure how similar Jonathan's situation is to mine, but I am in this
group as an individual. I do not get paid, nor am I encouraged in any way
by my employer to participate. I participate only because I care deeply
about this portion of the disabled population who gets downtrodden badly
enough by life "as we know it" anyway. I give the time to the project that
I can, but I can't do the work of the whole group all by myself. I would
love to be able to attend the upcoming conference and address you in
person, but I would have to finance it myself and cannot do so. 

In the past, Jonathon and I have been asked to point out sites that were
appropriate for the audience we discuss, and it has been difficult to find
ones that were appropriate and not strictly entertainment. Now you expect
us to only report on appropriate sites that are compliant to guidelines
that literally ignore the needs of this group. Why? If you are one of the
members of this group who is well-addressed by the guidelines, and you are
frustrated because the sites appropriate for our folks unusable, perhaps it
would be well for you to reflect on how these folks may feel when they pay
taxes for sites you can use and they cannot before you display anger.

	I have, since you wrote, replied to Greg's points. I could do so only
because I am home today with a malady that is either a bad cold or a nasty
attack of spring allergy. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been able to reply
except to perhaps one response per night when I got home from work. I have
put in some six hours to replies today between sneezes, coughs, tissues and
C-tablets. Of course, if someone wanted to pay me to just work on these
issues, I could and would do more. Wanna volunteer?


Anne L. Pemberton
Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2000 06:37:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:31 UTC