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

Re: Against zero-sum games

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:00:28 +0200
Message-ID: <001801c0dc43$8ff6a740$6791003e@seeman>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I can not imagine that anyone (even on the WAI-GL) can disagree with that.

This solution about the cut curbs was found by not running away from the
problems and dichotomy that were encountered in creating this guideline, but
by facing them head on and finding a creative way to resolve them.

This attitude of late, of "this guideline has a problem/ is not practical -
so let us scrap it" is beneath us.

-----Original Message-----
From: gregory j. rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2001 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Against zero-sum games

>amen, brother!
>that's precisely one of the point i've been attempting to articulate for
>past god-knows-how long -- false dichotomies are the most effective form of
>divide-and-conquer...  accessibility isn't an either-or proposition, nor
>should it ever be presented as such, which is why any attempt to make WCAG
>blueprint for "specialized" design runs counter to the very concept of
>accessibility...  the entire point of WCAG is to provide solutions -- we
>simply need to step back, take a deep breath, and expend our energies on
>providing interoperable solutions -- a term which we must understand as
>pertaining not only to technology, but modalities and functionalities as
>well -- rather than in perpetuating threads in which we reargue the same
>issues we've been arguing for the past 4 years...
>which is why it is incumbent upon us, as a working group, to ensure that
>WCAG 2.0 is the synthesis of:
>technical expertise -- how does one break down barriers to comprehension
>functionality in one modality without erecting barriers to comprehension
>functionality in another?
>practical knowledge -- what is optimal, what is necessary, what is required
>by spec, what is interoperable, what is actually supported by the
>technology, how users use the technology, why, and how, and if, they can be
>convinced to change
>common sense -- or, rather, what i'd prefer to call "common sense", but
>which practical experience has taught me is more accurately called
>sense", of which, intelligent curb-cut design is an excellent example
>real-life experience -- a large chunk of which consists of listening
>to what actual users have to say about what works and what doesn't, which
>also implies testing contested/competing solutions
>RATIONAL, adj.  Devoid of all delusions save those of observation,
>experience and reflection.
> --                Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
>Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
>          Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 02:00:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC