W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: appology

From: Rob Haverty <robhav@exchange.microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 06:00:45 -0800
Message-ID: <12E1DB4CC9121C40BF0DEFA755C85A5902A60514@df-chewy-msg.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Gez Lemon" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>
Cc: "WCAG WG mailing list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Quite the interesting statement Gez.  I personally do not know anyone involved in WCAG who is not passionate about accessibility and finding the best solution(s) regarding the improvement of technology to make it fully accessible to all users.  Please do not mistake efforts to make sure the guidelines are technically acheivable and free of subjective interpretation as oppostion to improving accessibility.
Rob Haverty
Technical Evangelist
Accessible Technology Group


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org on behalf of Gez Lemon
Sent: Thu 11/3/2005 8:46 PM
To: David MacDonald
Cc: WCAG WG mailing list
Subject: Re: appology

On 03/11/05, David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca> wrote:
> In our conference call I believe I made an unfair comment. About the Acronym
> issue, I said "it appears that industry is lining up against disability
> consultants." I think every one on this committee is concerned about making
> a document that will provide the maximum accessibility to people with
> disabilities in a way that is realistic and sustainable. And I trust our
> group conscience and I trust our process. For that reason I apologize for
> the comments. I have a great respect for everyone on the committee and hope
> you will accept my sincere apology.

Although I can't speak for everyone on the call, I'm sure that
everyone present on the call accepts your apology. I accept your
apology, even though there was no need to apologise to me.

Being relatively new to the group, I've never understood if this is
the elephant in the room [1], or whether it's just been purely
coincidental that certain members never seem to support anything that
would obviously improve accessibility, but would require work on their
part as they're issues that they wouldn't have already addressed. I've
always assumed it's the elephant, but have never liked to mention it
in case it was taboo. You've apologised for making a simple
observation, so I'm really pleased that I've never been brave enough
to mention the elephant.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

Best regards,


Supplement your vitamins
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 14:00:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC