W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: Accessibility of Salt Lake Olympic Site

From: Denise Wood <Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 04:56:34 +1030
Message-ID: <E1962E8F1DF0D411878300A0C9ACB0F902463766@exstaff4.magill.unisa.edu.au>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Yes - agreed Kynn

This is not the forum for lynching organisations - just informing. I should
have been a little clearer about my suggestion about a report. I would not
think it appropriate to send a report, just an email outlining some of the
concerns. The purpose of the report I was suggesting was for our own benefit -
it is easier to construct an email when you are clear about the problems in the
site. If you don't have some sort of checklist in mind there is risk that the
email would appear vague and uninformed. OK - lets not refer to a report - just
a list of the identified problems based on the guidelines.

The reference to the Australian site I think adds weight to the email but if
you think it would be construed as threatening or that it is not relevant then
it should not be included.

I am certainly not advocating a lynching - just a means for informing and
guiding those responsible. The goal is after all to lead to a more accessible
site for the SLC.

Thanks for raising this as a potential issue Kynn.


Dr Denise L Wood
Lecturer: Professional Development (online teaching and learning)
University of South Australia
CE Campus, North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000
Ph:    (61 8) 8302 2172 / (61 8) 8302 4472 (Tuesdays & Thursdays)
Fax:  (61 8) 8302 2363 / (61 8) 8302 4390
Mob: (0413 648 260)

Email:	Denise.Wood@unisa.edu.au
WWW:	http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/homepage.asp?Name=Denise.Wood

-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
Sent: Sunday, 28 October 2001 4:18 AM
To: Denise Wood; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Accessibility of Salt Lake Olympic Site

At 3:45 AM +1030 2001/10/28, Denise Wood wrote:
>I've made a bit of a start in my very earlier email and others have 
>contributed already to the discussion about the site. What does 
>everyone think about starting to shape up a document like TomW's but 
>based on the SLC site with contributions from those who can?

I am a bit concerned with the WAI lists basically being used to identify
an inaccessible site and then whip up a frenzy of negative feedback on
their accessibility.  I think that the circumstances are different enough
-- e.g., the Australian site received complaints and had the opportunity
to deal with them (even if they ignored them) and to the best of my
knowledge no one has written to the Salt Lake City site yet.

I think before we start writing manifestos on why any given site (chosen
at quasi-random) is bad, we need to first make every effort to work with
them to inform them of the problems and offer assistance as allies.
Publicly preparing unsolicited accessibility reports is not necessarily
a friendly tactic.

In short, I am fearful of WAI interest group mailing lists becoming a
lynch mob -- that's not what they're for and ultimately it does not
help our cause to take such an approach.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2001 14:26:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC