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: Jim Thatcher <thatch@attglobal.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:36:08 -0600
To: "1 W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <NDBBKJDAKKEJDCICIODLIECKCNAA.thatch@attglobal.net>

>I think it's unclear and I think it's poorly supported.  The numbers
>of people who turn to _WAI_ to interpret _federal regulations_ should
>tell us something; namely, that they aren't getting what they need
>from the Access Board.

At least nine of the sixteen items for 508 are taken verbatum from WCAG. I
think turning to WAI for clarification in those cases makes sense.

Jim
jim@jimthatcher.com
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 7:43 PM
To: William Loughborough; Katie Haritos-Shea; 1 W3C-WAI Web Content
Access. Guidelines List
Subject: RE: Section 508 Question on Javascript - Section 1194.22,
Paragraph (l)


At 04:27 PM 2/13/2001, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 02:20 PM 2/13/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>there are poorly written requirements and that makes it hard for
>>people...to understand what exactly is required.
>These words keep blithely tripping off your fingertips and I don't really
>understand why.

They're carefully chosen.  If you think they're "blithely tripping
off my fingertips" then I'm curious how you've managed to get inside
my head and/or my fingertips, William.

Please -don't- accuse me of lack of thought, just because you don't
agree with what I say.  Nothing pisses me off more.  If you want to
disagree, then fine, but please do -not- assume that my opinions are
based on whimsy.

>"Poorly written" is just too facile/inaccurate/demeaning for the document.
>It could be said (probably has) for just about anything ever written. I
>just can't accept that you don't "understand" the "requirements".

Obviously you don't think they're poorly written.  I tend to think
they are.  Why do you think that it is "too demeaning" to a document
to call it what it is?  Is this some sort of meta-political-correctness
kick whereby you can't even be critical of a pseudo-technical policy
document without "the document" taking offense?

I think it's unclear and I think it's poorly supported.  The numbers
of people who turn to _WAI_ to interpret _federal regulations_ should
tell us something; namely, that they aren't getting what they need
from the Access Board.

What, exactly, do you see as the problem with saying that I don't find
the Section 508 regulations to be well-written?  They look like they
were written by policy writers with little understanding beyond the
surface level of the technology they're working with, and they don't
seem to be written for a web designer audience.  These are my opinions
and if you like I will _gladly_ go out and get support for them by
interviewing web authors to see if these documents are well-written
or not.  I'd rather not take the time right now, though.

>It can be better written and more understandable and that's why we're
>paying you the big bucks

Eh?  Reef is paying me big bucks to do things that have little to do
with making Section 508 more understandable.

>but meanwhile if you could curb the denigration just one notch it would be
>more comfortable herein.

It's not denigration.  The Section 508 regulations for web design are
not well written.  That's a fact.  Sorry.

>C U @ CSUN?

Certainly -- it's in my home town, almost, and I wouldn't miss it for
the world.  You can hit me in person if you like. ;)
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2001 21:47:14 GMT

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