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

RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22, Paragraph (l)

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:20:05 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010213141547.00a70db8@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: "Katie Haritos-Shea" <kshea@apollo.fedworld.gov>, "1 W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 11:47 AM 2/13/2001, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote:
>Please don't fault Doug for the loopholes and missing pieces, as we all
>know, new issues are developing every day, as well as the fact that this is
>one complicated mess of differing technologies coming together.

I'm not faulting Doug, but it's true that there are poorly written
requirements and that makes it hard for people (such as federal
employees, web contractors, or even educators such as myself) to
understand what exactly is required.

>And, every
>group writing standards do not necessarily have the luxury of having the
>finest technological minds available for each and every issue.

That seems sorta weird, to me.  The W3C manages to get by with
hundreds of brilliant people working on their issues, many of whom
in WAI do it as a volunteer effort -- and yet on an issue that is
going to cost the U.S. federal government millions if not billions
of dollars, they didn't have the "luxury" of recruiting the finest
minds?

The impact of 508 is estimated to be as high as $1B per year, and
they couldn't find the money to get it right the first time?  I'm
confused by your statements, Katie.  (I realize that they may not
represent official access board statements.)

--Kynn
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 17:11:23 GMT

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