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

Re: WCAG usability Re: Multiple versions of a web page

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 11:38:17 -0500
Message-ID: <000b01c18ef4$e420be00$c2f20141@mtgmry1.md.home.com>
To: "Harry Woodrow" <harrry@email.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>, "WAI IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
it is your arrogance that brings this out and it is the arrogant
responses you make that re-oinforces this but I will not differ with you
on your clarification.  I will say though that it would take a lot of
money and a lot of years to come up with metrics and even they might be
worthless depending on how far reaching they are and how much the
technology has changed by then.  I'm not against metrics but I have seen
two things come out of metrics that scare me.  One is that attempts to
measure often distort what is being measured and thus the results are
distorted and two there is often a biass in the measurements that can
invalidate them.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>; "Harry Woodrow"
<harrry@email.com>; "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>; "WAI IG" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 11:13 AM
Subject: Re: WCAG usability Re: Multiple versions of a web page


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/+d201
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 11:49:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT