W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: New Guideline proposal

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:13:43 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010402171343.007bb190@pop.erols.com>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Bruce,

	If what you say is true, I seriously need to consider whether this is a
good use of my time. My purpose for joining was to see tha the needs of
cognitive and learning disabled folks were included in accessibility for
the web, PARTICULARLY government sites. Now you say that if these people
are included in the guidelines here, they are likely to be dis-included at
another level. 

	I strongly disagree that this would not upset the politicians who vote for
and against these measures. If they are informed (and the need seems to
arise from what you are telling me), they may not be too happy to support a
measure that deliberately dis-includes some disabled while proclaiming to
be helping all.

						Anne 


	 

	

At 09:39 AM 4/2/01 -0400, Bailey, Bruce wrote:
>     Dear Anne et al.    ""  If you want to see substantive provision for
>cognitively disabled folks in an updated version of 508, you will need to
>craft a standard that is unambiguous and not require exceptions.  <> <>  ""
>  Unless we do better -- and I don't believe that we can -- we have no
>logical basis for hope that they might be adopted into an update of 508.  
>&  I would bet that the supporters of 508 have confidence in the people
>doing the work and understand that while not perfect, the results are very,
>very good.
  Just my own opinion and not anything from my employer. 
>-- Bruce   ---------- 
>From:  Anne Pemberton 
>Sent:  Friday, March 30, 2001 4:33 PM 
>To:    Matt May; Jeff Isom; WCAG 
>Subject:          etc.   Matt,           My understanding was that 508 was
>based on P1 level of Guidelines 1.0, not 
>the version currently under discussion. There were no substantive 
>provisions for cognitively disabled in version 1.0. It is my sincere hope 
>that version 2 will correct that oversight and allow 508 to be updated 
>accordingly.            I wonder if the politicians who support 508 would
>have done so if they'd 
>any glimmer of an idea that any group, especially the cognitively disabled, 
>                                                Anne    
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 17:08:05 GMT

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