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

Rating "systems"

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 06:12:51 -0800
Message-ID: <34C60263.A9CAA466@gorge.net>
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Josh Krieger writes:

>I suspect that if we are to try and create a PICS based accessibility >rating system, it needs to encompass both a human judgement of >accessibility AND an automated judgement of accessibility. 

WL:: It has been pointed out about Josh's "rating system" Bobby that
there are lots of scenarios including accessible sites failing as well
as inaccessible sites certified OK.  This will be even more true for the
problem of ensuring that sites are *pragmatically* accessible.  Just as
we use highway patrolmen to insure that automobiles using the public
roads are in "financially responsible" hands, so we will probably have
to utilize "web police" (like folks on the webwatch list) to assure the
complianace of web authors with the standards required by law.  Just as
it is possible to forge "proof of insurance coverage" it is possible to
put gibberish in alt-tags, so we must be watchful for sincere compliance
or the poor unfortunate web authors will find themselves embroiled in
law suits because of their sociopathic behavior <g>.  Oprah Winfrey is
on trial in Texas because she said she wasn't going to eat any more
hamburgers!  It would be a shame if the webmaster for Walt Disney had to
explain why Mickey Mouse didn't have a DESCRIPTION.
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 1998 09:13:43 GMT

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