W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: QED & Marshall McLuhan

From: Chris Maden <crism@oreilly.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 12:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199906081652.MAA09394@ruby.ora.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
[Anne Pemberton]
> I remember when it was believed to be quite impossible to educate
> children who were born with cognitive limitations and parents were
> urged to institutionalize their birthing "mistakes" and never look
> back.  There were folks back then who believe the impossible was
> possible.

So it was impossible, and wasn't done, then someone figured it out, it
became possible, and it was done.  Where's the problem?  We don't know
how to do it now, so we can't do it.  We'll keep working on it, figure
it out, and *then* do it.  My point was only that requiring it before
we know how is futile.  By analogy, if I mandate a trip to Mars for
all WG members, no one will be able to do it now.  If I mandate that
we figure out how to get to Mars, and do it when possible, then future
WG members would be able to do it.

> And forming a separate (less equal?) subcommittee is not going to
> work towards a universality, but only a separation of facilities.

You're right... we should have one committee designing the entire Web.
Is 2050 an OK completion date for you?  We might be a little late...
we've got a lot to do.

My point is that the problems (accessibility and comprehensibility)
are different, the solutions will be different, and the skills
required to develop the solutions are (at least partly) different.
Having the same group of people attempt to solve both is silly.
Separate committees will allow focus and more efficient application of
skills; having an accessibility try to solve comprehensibility is
doing a disservice to the comprehension-challenged.

> Folks, consumers, & taxpayers (and potential tax payers) want to be
> included in the future, not shunted off to a side room for
> "illiterates".

So isn't it better to start people who have the skills working on
their problem now, rather than make them the next agenda item on a
group not necessarily qualified to focus on their problem?

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/crism/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 1999 12:52:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:44 GMT