W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2004

Fw: having slept on the conversation....

From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:02:31 +0200
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, oedipus@hicom.net
Message-id: <034501c468c5$f1ee2a60$ce59003e@IBMA4E63BE0B9E>

i have a deep concern about the direction of the scope argument.

IE: that people can claim a site conformance based on new content being accessible 
whilst i understand that this is difficult to deal with legacy pages, even with the scope of tools out there to help and make it easer, still dealing with inaccessible legacy pages its a practical problem.
However inaccessible content is inaccessible content.
if we create a conformance statement that allows people to claim accessibility with a scope that actually means that most of their site is inaccessible, why will they ever address legacy pages, and the web will stay inaccessible. Let them claim accessibility on a per page basis, let them make a press statements that 99% of hits on their  site is to accessible content (if old content is inaccessible is not so important). 

The reason that i see this as a death wish on accessibility is because so much important content is legacy. and with this scope option it will stay inaccessible  legacy.
Imagine if the whole Gutenberg project was inaccessible.  In providing this scope it would never become accessible.
archived content should be made accessible. Why shouldn't a person with a disability be able to do internet research , like the rest of us?

Ah, yes, i forgot, because it is difficult, off putting, bad for adoption of these standards. 
but sometimes i find myself asking - what standards?

 What are we?
 Are we a body creating guidelines about making the  web accessible
or a body of industry representatives trying to create an accessibility stamp that is suits their needs?


Keep well
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 06:42:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC