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

RE: [wcag2] Definition of 'complex content'

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 18:29:12 +0000 (UTC)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0408201552520.27956@aristotle.multipattern.com>

> I ask because I don't think we want to in any way say that complex 
> content should not be posted to the Web.

I'm glad you've said that, since we can now hold you to it.

But the reality of the last two years on this esteemed List is that the 
open and hidden agendas of claimed advocates for LD, dyslexic, and 
cognitively-disabled persons is to effect the following, in order of 

* ban content they deem complex
* or force authors to rewrite it
* or force authors to add other content to it

The first and most-cherished option is indeed to keep authors from posting 
complex content on the Web. Advocates may not get that, but it's what they 
ever so dearly want, and they usually have a very large club at their 
disposal to argue their case: "If you dispute what we're saying, then 
you're not really interested in accessibility." Actually, no, we are; we 
just don't want to overthrow the Web to suit your opinion.

It's all part of the doomed and discredited project to equate the 
accessibility provisions that are practicable, useful, and even possible 
for LD/D/CD persons with the provisions used for other disability groups. 
Accessibility provisions are not equally practicable, useful, and even 
possible across groups. There are limits to what we can do to accommodate 
LD/D/CD persons, but there are really no limits to what their advocates 
are willing to propose.

So yeah, let's *not* say that complex content should not be posted on the 


     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 18:29:15 UTC

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