W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Statement on Web Access Report from UK Disability Rights Commission

From: P.H.Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:27:45 +0100
Message-ID: <3A1D23A330416E4FADC5B6C08CC252B9787956@misnts16.mis.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> From: Julian Voelcker
[...]
> The last thing we need is the sort of tit for tat arguments more 
> commonly seen between organisations with competing products.


Julian,

I've only skimmed over Judy's response, but from what I understand
it's not really a "tit for tat argument", but a clarification that
needs to be made. I mean, there's a big difference between:

"Nearly half (45%) of the problems experienced by disabled users when 
attempting to navigate websites cannot be attributed to explicit violations 
of the Web Accessibility Initiative Checkpoints" (DRC)

and

"THE WAI GUIDELINES ADDRESS 95% OF BARRIERS REPORTED BY PEOPLE WITH 
DISABILITIES IN THE REPORT" (W3C)

In an ideal world, yes, we'd all be singing from the same song sheet,
but then there should probably be a bit more agreement and discussion
between all the relevant bodies before any figures are released in reports
and such...

As it stands now, this will cause confusion among those who are just
getting into accessibility (heck, even the ones who've been at it for quite
a while). But what's the alternative ? Have the W3C silently agreeing to
something they don't believe is factually correct, just to show a united front ?

For what it's worth, I didn't find the tone of Judy's email negative...simply
giving the W3C's view...but maybe I'm missing some nuances here...

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2004 04:28:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:32 UTC