W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

If we say some sites cannot conform.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:45:43 -0500
To: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Cc: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <007101c21239$0aa13c90$41d86880@laptop600>

I need clarification

Are you saying that we would create guidelines that would preclude
museums and libraries from conforming at any level?

If so then we run the risk of having people walk away from them and make
their own.

I don't think that we should create guidelines that are not achievable
by basically everyone -- or these guidelines will not take precedence.
Others will need to be written for general applicability and we will
have fragmentation.

This is not an easy topic, but we need to address it carefully.


Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Of Lee Roberts
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: john_slatin; 'jonathan chetwynd'
> Cc: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: RE: 4.1 and satire
> I don't think that it would be able to conform.  However, the artistic
> would still be relevant.  I don't think it is our goal to say that
poetry or
> satire is an area that should or could conform, but we should not say
> it would be unacceptable to have it on a web site.  People do a lot of
> studying on the subject of irony and satire while in school and
possibly for
> self-edification (although not my personal interests - if it's not
> science-fiction forget it).
> John's question holds a valid point and we should address it.  Should
> be a note that the particular page is not accessible due to the nature
> the message?  We could carry John's question to things more relevant
to our
> times.  The Onion provides satire all the time, would their site be
> accessible or not?  I was certainly lost when they came out with the
> on Dell closing - was it closing or not?
> Modern Political Satirists certainly spoof on the antics of today's
> politicians and politics.  Would their pages, articles, or even sites
> inaccessible with our standards?
> Lee Roberts
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of john_slatin
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:45 AM
> To: 'jonathan chetwynd'; john_slatin
> Cc: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: RE: 4.1 and satire
> Actually, Jonathan, there's a great deal of art that isn't accessible,
and a
> good deal of it is quite deliberately inaccessible-- the work of the
> Modernists in English and American poetry is a good example (T.S.
Eliot, for
> instance)  And some artists don't care a fig whether or not their work
> sells.
> I posed my query in all seriousness, though: is it possible for satire
> the sort I described to claim conformance to checkpoint 4.1 at any
> John
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:03 am
> To: john_slatin
> Cc: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: Re: 4.1 and satire
> Our students* have almost no, or at least very little understanding of
> I understood it is a common misconception that some nationalities fail
> to see the irony.
> the joke is lost in the telling? doing rather than talking, gosh i
> even myself on occassion.
> another reason why triple AAA ranking should require that its meaning
> understood by all.
> AA is quite enough for any drier intellect, and really A should
> Art is accessible, it has to sell.
> jonathan chetwynd
> with severe learning difficulties
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 13:46:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC