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

[Fwd: Re: The way of the wai:]

From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:14:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <1226.>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3c.org>

Sorry forgot to send to the list....
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: The way of the wai:
From: "Steven Dale" <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Tue, March 30, 2004 5:07 pm
To: <poehlman1@comcast.net>

First, let me say that I am not trying to be a troublemaker here.  I am
only trying to help.  This topic may have been discussed many times on
this and other lists, but apparently the people that see my point didnt
make themselves clear or WAI was not (or could not be) in a position to
see it at that time.

David Poehlman said:
> The WAI delivers its results through the efforts of many people
> through many  disciplines.
As it should be.  No one can be an expert in the whole accessiblity

> One thing that hampers us is that in some areas, it
> is either  difficult or impossible to find the necessary expertise to
> direct  development of its deliverables.

>  We have at users, at
> developpers, site  developpers and many others provide input into the
> evolution of
> deliverables.
And my point all along is that the USERS of at should be the ULTIMATE
input into the deliverables.  These suggestions from users CANNOT be
swept aside because it makes no sense in the current or future
development of standard website design.  I am a big proponent of
standards, but these standards MUST NOT compromise accessiblity,  they
accessiblity.  This is a very tough thing to accomplish, granted, but
that is why WAI was founded.  Please dont give into the easy way out,
please keep in mind WHO BENEFITS from this activity.

> The archives of this and the other public lists will bear out the
> journeys  that have and are taking place in order to fullfill the
> goals and desires of  all of us.  Where those goals and or desires
> seem to conflict, we work to  resolve the differences and we all learn
> and gain in the process.
Yes, it is a growing process.

> If something needs to change, we should find out what it is and change
> it.
We need to analyze what the problem REALLY is and not offer solutions
that suggest only one way of possibly correcting it while poo pooing
other ways without serious consideration of what problem is attempted to

>If something is correct, let's make sure we know what it is.
I think a knowledge base system would be a great idea for this.
Something that can be updated and modified as we learn what works and
what doesnt.  Waiting for the next standard to go through the approval
procees in order to distribute this information causes a great delay and
many correct ideas may be forgotten by then.  The standards should
gather information from these knowledge bases when it comes time to
update the standards.  These knowledge bases should have many ideas on
how to solve many types of problems encountered.  A possible solution
should be included no matter how politically wrong it is.  Given that it
may be politcally wrong, it may not be perfect, but it plants a seed for
someone to improve upon.  Often with these lists, an initial idea comes
to light to address an issue.  This idea is "not quite right"
politically, it gets improved upon and built upon.  In the process of
improving the original idea, the original problem gets lost and the
"Correct" way of doing something solves a totally different problem than
what the original problem was.

> Often, we  mention things that are rong and neglect to focus on right
> things so that we  can capture them and ensure that they continue to
> be part of the effort.
See above

Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:27 UTC