RE: having slept on the conversation....

Just so those on the list (and not at the face to face) are not confused. 
 
What is being discussed here was mentioned by a couple people at the face to
face but was not the position of the group nor the consensus.    
 
The consensus at the end of the discussion was to allow scoping but the
'conformance' label or clain would only be applied to the portion that
conformed or met the guidelines - not the whole site.   
 
How much of a site had to conform is a policy issue not a guidelines issue
and will be discussed in a separate document titled something like  "Lessons
learned regarding policy and best practices" or some such.
 
Gregg

PS Lisa was on the phone and used the list to pass messages to the group
during the meeting.  Hence these postings. 
 

- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

 


  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Yvette P. Hoitink
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:06 AM
To: 'Lisa Seeman'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: having slept on the conversation....


Lisa wrote:

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?
 
?

Thank you Lisa, for expressing so well what has been bothering me too. I
absolutely agree with you. 
 
We're supposed to make guidelines that organizations can use to determine if
their web content is accessible. If their web content is inaccessible, we
shouldn't offer a way to claim accessibility. If that means some corporate
website get labelled as inaccessible because (in their opinion) it's an
undue burden to change all the legacy content, so be it. Their website
really is inaccessible after all, which people with disabilities will
encounter if they want to access the legacy content.
 
As has been said before, by making the guidelines we drive the creation of
tools. In other words: we determine what will be easy to do in the future.
If we decide not to offer an easy way out for legacy content, this will
stimulate the creation of tools to address problems with legacy content.
This can only help to achieve what should be our primary goal: accessibility
of the web for all.
 
Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl