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

WAI, PICS, & whatever

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:28:09 -0800
Message-ID: <34C61409.A5F69CFE@gorge.net>
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Mike Paciello writes:

>Accessible content isn't about the kind of content (i.e., pornography)
>but rather how that content is constructed in order to view it (or 
>render it in an alternative format)

WL:: Insofar as PICS relates to accessibility it is a valid subject for
discussion on this list.


>I've thought about this lately, particularly as a result of the >discussion thread. I am not convinced that a PICS based service will 
>really do anything as a certification or rating system -- unless 
>perhaps someone is in the business of certifying or rating web sites.

WL:: That is exactly what we are "in the business of" doing.  We (or our
"clients") are the people in the best position to certify or rate sites'
accessibility.  Perhaps there will be consultants, etc. to aid in this
process just as there are specialists in preparing Environmental Impact
Analyses.  Mike speaks of "proactive" and "practical" and I agree that
the harsh reality that some feel that this whole thing is a nuisance
must be faced in various ways - it will not always be advisable to
threat or bluster but we still must maintain the correct attitude: 
accessibility to the web is a right guaranteed by law, custom, and
morality and the privilege of shortcuts taken to avoid complying with
common sense accessibility guidelines cannot be tolerated.  Very few web
authors *want* to embed inaccessibility and that's where we come in. 
But as long as we are willing to accept the excuses of "budget and time
don't permit..." we will be seen as pitiful advocates of the pitiful and
that won't get it.
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 1998 10:29:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:00 UTC