At 8:26 AM -0500 12/27/01, David Poehlman wrote: >Kynn, it seems that web accessibility was borne with you if we are to >take what you say litterally. Excuse me? I beg your pardon? >I am going to take one statement and >paraphrase it and refute it. If this statement is not attributable to >you, we can blame it on my screen reader and I would think you would >know better than to make such a statement so I am in doubt that I heard >it from you. Okay, let's see that statement. This is it? >wcag was never tested. I don't believe I said "WCAG was never tested", no. And certainly if you read it in context, I stated that there were specific types of tests which have not been done in a vigorous manner. >As wcag was being developped, there was a lot of testing that went into >it. In fact, you can see lots of test pages that were created aand lots >of techniques for following the guidelines that were developped based on >lots of feedback from lots of users under varying circumstances and the >addition is still going on. Good, so where are the hard statistics in measurable numbers on how much accessibility is improved if you follow WCAG 1.0 Single-A, WCAG 1.0 Double-A, and WCAG 1.0 Triple-A? Kindly point them to me, or more properly, kindly concede the point that the type of testing I'm _talking_ about has not yet been done, and these particular bits of information are not available. Please don't accuse me of thinking "web accessibility was borne with me" as a way of avoiding issues. Nothing annoys me more than personal insults in lieu of addressing legitimate criticism and identification of a valid need. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 11:17:44 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:14:17 GMT