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

Re: Structure of deliverables: are we too PC for our own good?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 10:57:26 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 12:31 PM 9/9/01 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
>The agenda for the F2F should treat this matter as a question, not as a 
>given, or we will most likely just prolong a frustrating level of 
>wheel-spinning in the group.

The UA document has not (and IMHO should not) attain the level of 
"recommendation" and their travails along this highway should serve notice 
that this might not be a road along which to continue: it no longer 
contains signs reading "this way to accessibility".

The reason that UA is essentially an internal document is that there is no 
audience for it who is willing to pay any attention thereto. There's 
virtually no industry participation in that WG and precious little in this, 
although we have many friends/clients represented herein.

As Al says, "It's good stuff as the corporate memory of the group that 
wrote it. But that's it. It's not a valid deliverable. It is
not an answer to any _stakeholder's_ problem", and it is *their* problem 
that we are "raising money" for. The overhead isn't a burden but the 
absence of effect could be. The first rec did its job beyond some of our 
wildest dreams, spawning a new industry and creating a bevy of "508 ladies" 
in industry - an industry that had largely patted our clientele on the head 
and "admired their courage" sickeningly. Now is more like time to furnish 
guidance rather than guidelines.

But then I ramble a lot in my creeping senility on Sunday mornings.

Oh, and regrets for the F2F.

Received on Sunday, 9 September 2001 13:55:01 UTC

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