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

Re: process of a site development

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:14:13 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010131090255.035353f0@mail.gorge.net>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: "WAI" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:52 AM 1/31/01 -0800, Matt May wrote:
>Rather than focus on generalized processes, might it be more effective to 
>create role documents

As you lowly regard "best practices" I deplore "rather" since there can be 
a multiplicity of foci. If I come into the "document" as a one-person 
designer/builder/implementor I can tell it that I want a viewpoint 
similarly couched, if I'm in the Department of Whatever and must deal with 
an avalanche of resources/requirements/responsibilities I might choose a 
"larger" version?

Because most of the WG members are heavy into the "individual" aspect of 
things, we need wake-ups from people who find certain naivetes laughable as 
in "oh, you want to add meaningful alt="text" - here's 237,422 images for 
you to work on." What Phill faced at IBM (half million+ distinct sites, as 
I recall!) vs. much of Kynn's clientele who deal more privately with things.

Ultimately the "megashop" produces something that pretends the intimacy of 
a single author's voice and the "mom-pop house" wants to spread out and 
look like an army - graphics over here, interaction there, etc. Just as our 
intended "beneficiaries" vary widely, so does our target audience and by 
giving elaborate choices, a person putting up a home page can be a 
vicarious "major Web design house".

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2001 12:12:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT