Re: FW: Revision to Web Accessibility Policy

Chaals and Kynn,

    You both missed the point of my note. We are all
well aware that WCAG 1.0 has a seriously flawed
compliance system. That's why we're trying to do
better.

The issue is whether you can ever get compliance from
folks whose motivation and intelligence you negate.
Announcing publicly that web designers are lazy and
ignorant and even harboring that belief within your
heart tho you don't say it, isn't going to garner much
in the way of acceptance from folks who design web
sites.

Neither WCAG 1.0 nor 508 delivers a truly accessible
site that would meet the needs of all university
students with disabilities. Just in numbers, there are
more folks with learning disabilities enrolled in
college than there are folks with disabilities
addressed in Level A or AA of WCAG 1.  By the time you
get to Level AAA you have piled in so much unnecessary
baggage that you may wonder if you have a page left.

                    Anne

--- kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com wrote:
 > Chaals is correct:
 > > 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.
 >
 > I think 508's technical requirements are both a
 > different kind of beast
 > than WCAG 1 and ultimately inferior in many ways
 > (e.g.: don't address
 > the needs of enough people, don't account for the
 > multitude of very
 > good things contained in WCAG 1 p2 and p3, etc); a
 > direct comparison
 > is not easy, but I would put the usefulness of
 > improving accessibility
 > in the following order:
 >
 >     Nothing at all
 >     508
 >     WCAG 1 single A
 >     WCAG 1 double A
 >     WCAG 1 used sensibly as described by me earlier
 > :)
 >
 > WCAG 2's location has yet to be determined since
 > it's a work in progress.
 >
 > As Chaals also said, the debate over "what's good
 > and what doesn't, and
 > whether Kynn is right that 508 sucks or whatever" is
 > really not the issue
 > here -- to me the issue is "how do we write WCAG 2
 > compliance so that
 > it is an inclusive meta-standard encompassing all of
 > the above and any
 > other appropriate and well-thought-out accessibility
 > standard that an
 > informed policy maker may choose to implement,
 > rather than hardwiring
 > compliance schemes _which cause people to reject our
 > checkpoints
 > themselves_."
 >
 > That's the hidden danger, outright rejection of WCAG
 > work entirely, and
 > it comes about when we take the
 > checkpoints/techniques/body of knowledge
 > which we've acquired which is _so very good and
 > useful_, and then impose
 > too strict of a compliance scheme leading people to
 > reject that entire
 > body of knowledge and look to something as limited
 > as the 508 technical
 > requirements.
 >
 > --Kynn
 >
 >
 >
 >


=====
Anne Pemberton
Computer Teacher
Southside Elementary School
Dinwiddie, VA, USA 23894
apembert45@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 20:47:58 UTC