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

Re: Higher Profile for Non-Blind Disabled Users

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 06:26:48 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

         I hate to be the one to say it, but this is exactly what I said 
would happen when I first came on this list two years ago, and now it is 
happening. Not just in Texas, but on the site the feds are making for how 
to's - it is stated that these accommodations are aimed at the visually 
impaired disabled.

         We really need to put and end to the bickering and name calling. 
Yes I reply in kind when my name is used or implied. And I really have not 
enjoyed the past few weeks with some new guys on the list who instigated 
another fight over the rights of certain disabled folks to be 
accommodated.  Each time we waste a week or two letting the new guys spout 
off and pick on Anne, we lose another week of solving the real problems.

         Today we report back to work for the new school year, and my time 
to waste arguing comes to an end. What is my argument?   To include the 
cognitively disabled in the guidelines? Is that such a bad thing? Seems to 
have been. Now it's clear we may have missed the chance to include these 
folks in government guidelines (when accessible government sites are the 
most important and least useful at present) ... It's looking like my time 
with W3C has been mostly wasted....

         Thanks, Kynn, for bringing this to our attention.


At 05:39 PM 8/21/01 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>The state of Texas is doing a good thing by setting accessibility
>standards:  http://www.dir.state.tx.us/standards/S201-12.htm
>However, they're also doing a bad thing by believing that the only
>challenge that needs to be addressed is accessibility for blind
>(5) Generally accessible Internet site -- A state Web site that:
>      (A) complies with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
>          for persons with visual disabilities promulgated by the W3C;
>      (B) contains no priority 1 errors; and
>      (C) complies with HTML standards published by the W3C.
>Policies of these kind scare me because they represent a fundamental
>misunderstanding of what we're all about, which suggests that we
>(WAI participants) may not be doing our jobs effectively.
>It is worrisome that people think of accessibility as ONLY visually
>impaired users.
>We need to make sure that people with a wide variety of disabilities
>are "visible" in whatever we produce.  I think we're doing that now,
>but if so, we still need to look at why misinterpretations happen
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
>Technical Developer Liaison
>Reef North America
>Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
>Tel +1 949-567-7006

Anne Pemberton

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 06:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC