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

Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:44:13 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

         During the late 80's early 90's, when education was under a lot of 
outside criticism, it was often considered fair game to characterize 
teachers as "lazy and ignorant". An intelligent educator generally noted 
that those who so characterized the teachers had nothing concrete to offer.

         In any field, "standards" imposed from the outside are suspect. It 
doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to compare WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 and 
see that WCAG 1 is badly flawed. WCAG 2 isn't ready for prime time yet. 
That leaves only the 508 as a standard to follow.


At 10:07 PM 10/22/01 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 10:32 AM 10/17/2001 , Graham Oliver wrote:
> >I find it interesting that an institution that has
> >such a strong reason to make a web site accessible
> >should 'choose' this level of conformance.
> >One of the things that I have been thinking hard about
> >is 'If people want to do accessibility what is in it
> >for them to aim for anything higher than the 'lowest
> >level'?'
>In short, it's because we haven't given them a reasonable
>choice in WCAG 1.0.  Which means that they look elsewhere
>for "reasonable" and conclude (incorrectly) that it's the
>508 technical standards.
>The sad situation described here is basically a combination
>of two things -- web developers being lazy and ignorant
>(and hating outside imposition of standards), and the
>perception that 508 is a valid alternative to a WCAG-based
>policy.  Both concepts are harmful to accessibility.
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
>Technical Developer Liaison
>Reef North America
>Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network

Anne Pemberton

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 06:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:21 UTC