W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 1998

Attitude Adjustment Plea

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:18:56 -0800
Message-ID: <34C57730.1A417165@gorge.net>
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Chuck Opperman writes:

>To make a site accessible does take additional work, work that is often
>punted in favor of meeting deadlines and/or budgets.

>While it certainly better to do it from the start that to do it later, >we have to consider the fact that it is more work and it needs to be >justified and made easier.

WL::  We frequently find ourselves taking an almost apologetic stance
concerning the *REQUIREMENT* for accessibility in web sites.  The
"justification" that Chuck speaks of is a case in point.  Our attitude
must not be that "it would sure be nice and the right thing to do if you
would just take the extra time to..." but "you are required to make
anything you publish on the web accessible and here's what that means."
This is a fact ethically, morally and more to the point legally.  We are
not begging for accessibility if they can find the time or justification
for it, we are pointing out that this accessibility is *required* just
as much as it is required that the document will transmit under http:
and all that other alphabet stuff.  Our "education and outreach" must
come from the point of view that we are showing how best to comply with
a requirement, not to point out what a nice thing they can do for some
poor unfortunate!  Punting (which means kicking somebody off the
"information highway") is *NOT AN OPTION*.  Instead of hat in hand we
are trying to save authors from breaking the law, as well as being
sociopaths.
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 1998 23:20:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:38 GMT