- From: RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:15:27 -0400
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Patrick Lauke wrote: > Because otherwise what you have is a document detailing > purely "technical accessibility", I understand, and actually agree to a point. Let me make my point this way. In the United States, people, especially decision makers in business, make decisions based on quantifiable numbers. Those numbers need to translate into positive dollars. If you can't quantify things, most people don't care. Making a Web page WCAG 1.0 AAA compliant doesn't really mean anything to most people, especially if you see a BOBBY Report that still lists several warnings that need to be manually checked. Again, it is too ambiguous for the common person to understand. Markup that has passed validation means something, because people can see (or read) and understand the result. > the goal of real accessibility. It seems to me that despite the fact WCAG has been a Recommendation for more than five years a lot of people are still debating even how to define accessibility. That is evident by the discussions that have been going on for the past few days. Accessibility guidelines are a wonderful idea, I just happen to think they need to be less subjective in order to gain wider acceptance. ---------- Randal Rust Covansys Corp. Columbus, OH
Received on Thursday, 19 August 2004 13:15:51 UTC