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

Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 06:55:33 -0400 (EDT)
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110230654060.5630-100000@tux.w3.org>
I believe Kynn was not suggesting that WCAG 1 or WCAG 2 were perfect, just
that 508 was not as good as the (admittedly imperfect) WCAG 1.

Which is primarily an argument for another place, but we would do well to
compare the two and identify where we think each is stronger or weaker.

Chaals

On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:

  Kynn,

           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.

                                                           Anne

  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
  >
  >--
  >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
  >Technical Developer Liaison
  >Reef North America
  >Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
  >________________________________________
  >BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
  >________________________________________
  >http://www.reef.com

  Anne Pemberton
  apembert@erols.com

  http://www.erols.com/stevepem
  http://www.geocities.com/apembert45


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 06:55:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT