W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

untill:

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:54:08 -0500
Message-ID: <001f01c06ac6$ff8eee80$2cf60141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
untill is in the guidelines for specific reasons and I suggest that if
you don't know it has come to past regard it as not.  It is not hard
to find out whether the untill has been met and there will be another
pack of guidelines for us to learn coming along shortly.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: December 20, 2000 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: Is AAA Onerous?


At 12:28 PM 12/20/2000 , Charles F. Munat wrote:
>As has been pointed out repeatedly, "strict interpretations" is your
>interpretation of anyone else's interpretation that doesn't align
with
>yours, Kynn. There is nothing strict about taking the checkpoints at
face
>value.

There are a number of checkpoints which are -vague- and thus require
a value judgment from the author _and_ from any evaluators.  There is
no way to "take at face value" a vague statement requiring a
subjective
judgment.

A strict interpretation is not one that does not align with mine,
Charles.  I really wish you could lay off resorting to personal
attacks or things like it, and instead address what I say.

Let me say it again, so that you will see clearly what I am saying:

      Any "standard" which involves a subjective judgment is onerous
      because nobody can know for certainty if they have "satisfied"
      it, and therefore anyone else can accuse them of not having met
      the standard if they so choose.

Did we learn nothing from over a month of Florida vote-counting?  A
standard which is too vague as to be enforceable -- "the intent of
the voter", "when appropriate", etc. -- is subject to a huge variety
of interpretations and there is no fair way to resolve compliance
with such a "standard."

A "strict" interpretation is one which sets as high a bar as necessary
to disqualify a web site.  A "loose" interpretation is one which sets
as low a bar as necessary for a given site to achieve compliance.  The
fact that strict and loose vary is the _problem_.

What is not under debate are my own interpretations, as I didn't even
_give_ them, Charles.  I have no idea where you get off claiming that
I'm berating any interpretations which disagree with my own when I
haven't even shared any of _mine_, but instead identified points of
specific vagueness and the fact that vagueness results in checkpoints
which -cannot- be objectively satisfied.

Continue to insult me if you like -- you're just making my point about
anyone arguing for practicality and reasonableness being demonized as
some sort of "enemy" -- but at least admit that it is impossible to
simply "take at face value" checkpoints which require subjective
judgment.

You can be at least -that- intellectually honest, right?

--Kynn


--
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 15:55:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT