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

Re: The way of the wai:

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:11:04 -0500
Message-ID: <009201c416ac$479639b0$6401a8c0@handsontech>
To: <sdale@stevendale.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

What is a certified at specialist?  Tell us more about how you use the web?

Knowledge bases are good We have something resembling them from the 
development side called techniques documents for the guidelines.  These are 
ways of implementing the guidelines that have been tested and found to be 
good practice.

I'd like to extend the discussion of end users a bit.  At the risk of 
appearing to slight someone, I will say that this is not meant to harm but 
to perhaps explicate.  There are ways to get end user data from those who do 
not have the ability to readily provide that data due to a lack of 
understanding of the processes envolved in what they do or for some other 
reason.  There are end users who can readily provide information from their 
experiences as input to the process.  We tend to gravitate toward working 
with the latter as data from the former can be expensive to retrieve and 
make usefull.  End users in the second category and I am sure that this is a 
continuum and I may be over simplifyin this often learn from their 
interactions with developpers so that the bar can be raised in the quality 
of their use.  This can help fascilitate the process for all the stake 
holders since it both provides a mechanism for moving forward at least 
somewhat and helps to ensure continued accessibility.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Dale" <sdale@stevendale.com>
To: <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: The way of the wai:



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 18:12:15 UTC

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