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

Re: The way of the wai:

From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:44:17 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <1255.129.174.36.174.1080686657.squirrel@www.stevendale.com>
To: <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Yes,  thank you for this response!  I would be interested in helping
anyway I can with the new WCAG guidelines.  I would be interested in what
you think of the knowledge base idea.

-Steve, (a user and VERY soon to be a certified AT Specialist)

ps: note the user before the specialist.

David Poehlman said:
> This end user agrees that the end user should be the primary target.
> This  gets us though into a quagnire of trying to figure out just how
> far to go to  make that happen?  This too has been a point of much
> discussion and Whenever  someone raises an issue where backward
> compatibility to a reasonable point  will not be achieved, It is pointed
> out that it needs to be taken into  account.
>
> A resonable response to any position is either a reasoned, seasoned or
> experienced response.  We need to move forward for many reasons, but we
> also  need to understand the dynamics of what is in place and is likely
> to be in  place for some time to come and when something better may
> impactfully  replace it so that we can move forward with grace and
> meaning rather than  moving forward as has been at times in the past and
> in the process, killing  off our ultimate objectives.  This is a high
> goal and a fine line but  preservation of the ground we have gained is
> just as important as making  things better in that in the process of
> working for improvement, we must not  break till it is breakable with
> the least impact, what works.
>
> It is my sincere hope that wcag 2.0 or whatever its final title is will
> help  to move us forward in ways that achieve our goals and also plug as
> many of  the grey areas as possible.  We will always be shooting at a
> moving target  part of which will stand still for some time to come
> though so we have our  work cut out for us.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Dale" <sdale@stevendale.com>
> To: <poehlman1@comcast.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:07 PM
> Subject: Re: The way of the wai:
>
>
> 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
> issue.
>
>> 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.
> Understood.
>
>>  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
> must ENABLE
> 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
> be
> corrected.
>
>>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
>
> -Steve
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:44:47 UTC

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