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

Re: Scott's Hypothetical Intranet

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:17:48 -0500
Message-ID: <381652BC.59658A52@clark.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
CC: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, WAI Interest Group Emailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
the answer is not yes unless the system demonstrates superior access
for all.  access is not a matter of choice.  it is a matter of
necessity.  It is a matter of finding the right tool for the job for
the disability or set of disabilities that it fits.  I still maintain
that there is no one access fits all solution in this senario and this
is the same thing we've been arguing on other venues for years.  They
may do and be doing it, but the answer is not yes.
Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 
> At 08:02 PM 10/26/1999 -0400, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> >i still think that the debate over specific tools is a red herring, and that
> >the issue remains one of providing accessible, interoperable content, and that
> >the provision of accessible, interoperable content need not be tailored  to the
> >lowest common denominator (as i have heard people refer to Lynx in the past)
> 
> Well, you and I agree -- but obviously we would because, as I said
> earlier, we are part of the Cult of Interoperability. :)  What I'm
> try to articulate is that just as no religious beliefs are held
> universally by all people in a society, neither do all people believe
> as we do that interoperability should be paramount.  Therefore, we
> will find that most companies find it perfectly reasonable to provide
> accessible Intranet services that may not fit our standards of
> interoperability, but do provide legitimate and complete access to
> their Intranet for their employees with disabilities.
> 
> If they meet the needs of those employees -- and are prepared to
> meet the needs of future employees -- then all we can accuse them of
> is a bit of short-sightedness in the long run (5-10 years -- but
> then who can be sure that our "interoperable" systems will exist
> in 5-10 years?), while applauding their ability to make their internal
> systems usable by all their employees.
> 
> So to answer the original question, "Can an intranet application
> mandate the use of one browser and still be accessible?" I think
> the answer would have to be "yes."  Is that the best way to do things?
> Perhaps not, but deciding otherwise is a business decision, not a
> decision purely of principles.
> 
> --
> 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 20:18:13 GMT

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