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

Re: single browser intranets

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:05:04 -0500
Message-ID: <381633A0.67715211@clark.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
CC: Claude Sweet <sweetent@home.com>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, W3c-wai-ig@w3.org
you make good points and I think you understand that this is an issue
stand and not a stand issue.  There is a concreete way to act.  we can
move forward.  if you want to pull down the wcag conformance and make
it work better, fine.  The issue I stand on still exists regardless of
what happens.  If they plan, they can plan correctly.
I'm not talking about after the fact.  I don't care if they don't
care, I care enough for all of us so if for instance a large entity is
preparing to introduce a major electronic presence and I am told
flatly that they don't plan to provide an accessible one and that this
is done with full knowledge then I go public and I apeal to all who
are concerned to do what ever is necessary to bring presure to bare to
halt the progress and have it redefined.  What I was refering to in my
excuse statement is that the technology is available, the information
is available so there need be no more excuse such as there might have
ben a few years or even perhaps a year ago that it wasn't possible or
it wasn't knowable.  I offer my design input services largely for free
and there is lots of software and interface material for the taking on
the web describing how to provide an accessible interface so the cost
need not be that high.  If a large company suddenly told their
employees that they were taking away all their monitors, what do you
think would happen?
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 
> At 04:53 PM 10/26/1999 -0500, David Poehlman wrote:
> >if they can make it at all, they can make it accessible.  we'll accept
> >no more excuses.
> 
> So what happens if you don't accept their excuse?  If they have a site
> that's functional, can be used by everyone in the company, and is
> accessible via a desginated "supported browser X" plus/minus assistive
> software, then they're not going to CARE if you accept their excuses
> for not making it work in lynx, Opera, pwWebspeak, or anything else.
> 
> Using language that is too strident and doesn't take into account
> benefit-cost analyses and other business decisions will actually hurt
> the case of getting web accessibility accepted by fortune 500 companies
> and other businesses.  This is one of the main failings of the WCAG,
> by the way -- the use of single-A/double-AA/triple-AAA as a defacto
> implementation guide, because the priority 1, 2, 3 ratings are based
> ENTIRELY on _benefit_ and not on _cost_, and therefore do not fit the
> criteria needed for adoption as part of a business plan.
> 
> I hope to remedy this in the near future, BTW.
> 
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org>
> President, Governing Board Member
> HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org>
> Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center
>   <URL:http://aware.hwg.org/>

-- 
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
Touching The Internet:
mailto:poehlman@clark.net
Voice: 301.949.7599
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/poehlman
http://poehlman.clark.net
Dynamic Solutions Inc.
Best of service
for your small business
network needs!
http://www.dnsolutions.com

---sig off---
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 18:05:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:45 GMT