W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

Re: Standards vs. Guidelines (was: RE: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources)

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 19:15:22 -0400
Message-Id: <BAE0F106-CE32-4F6D-9E5D-BF52CA2B646F@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Cc: "'Mark D. Urban'" <docurban@nc.rr.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: <mburks952@worldnet.att.net>

I agree.

bam bam!

--  
Jonnie Apple Seed
With His:
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s


On Jun 8, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Michael R. Burks wrote:


Mark,

Nicely said!

Bam!!!!

Kick it up a knotch!

About time someone said it!

Sincerely,

Mike Burks

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On  
Behalf
Of Mark D. Urban
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:11 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Standards vs. Guidelines (was: RE: Clear communication: (was  
RE:
Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources)


Stu and Jon bring up an interesting point - that is, why do people keep
pointing at the various WAI Guidelines as Standards?

The answer, of course, is that industry and governments use Standards  
all
the time, as mechanisms to ensure normative activity.  Without  
sounding like
the esteemed Mr. Gilman (who is without a doubt one of the most verbally
precise people I've met, in addition to being a great guy), what this  
means
in real life is that governments and industry need to have a measurable,
testable way to ensure that accessibility exists in a given web  
document,
and to what extent.

When people note that accessibility is a quality, not a quantity - and
therefore not measurable except to an individuals' unique needs - one  
of two
things happen:

1)  Eyes roll and people say "Of course - I understand now"  and then  
they
go and use the automated tool and accept whatever comes out as a test  
and
measure.

2)  People agree, and then in frustration a specific user community  
(i.e.
Blind folks with JAWS) is used as the metric for accessibility.

So, the issue here for me (as both a regulator and an implementer) is  
that
the WAI has consistently failed to write measurable, testable  
standards FOR
THE WEB TECHNOLOGIES WITHIN THE W3C PURVIEW.  The guidelines are, by
definition, a "best practice" for any document on the Web in any  
form.  What
is needed is a Standard for HTML, XHTML, etc. that is specific,  
testable,
and measurable.  Such a Standard would be ideally submitted to ISO or
ANSI/INCITS for fast-track incorporation.  Regulators and industry could
then reference the Standard, making it easy to keep pace with changes in
technology.

Regards,
Mark D. Urban
HHS 508 Project Manager
New Editions, Inc
919-395-8513
murban@neweditions.net
docurban@nc.rr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On  
Behalf
Of Stuart Smith
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 4:31 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM"  
format
resources)


Jon

That isn't always the case. It's about how you fight the fight. If we  
start
off believing all is lost then we are!

This is more than contracts (as necessary as they are), if we don't  
tackle
this problem now it will become imbedded.

OK but for the bean counters out there. Let's put this problem in that
perspective.

If the current situation i.e. turning Guidelines into standards  
becomes the
norm and therefore all that organisations will do. At some point a  
disabled
user faced with a  "compliant" but un-usable web site will launch the  
law
suit. Then the house of cards will come tumbling down. The wizards  
will soon
loose those govt contracts because their magic no longer works i.e. lost
business, lost revenue.

So that's the marketing dealt with. But I still say the real tragedy  
will be
thousands locked out of the system and turned increasingly into  
second class
citizens.

Cheers

Stu
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On  
Behalf
Of Jon Hanna
Sent: 08 June 2005 10:20
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM"  
format
resources)


Stuart Smith wrote:

> ---Then in that case Jon isn't time we shrugged our image of being
>
wizards? I never liked it anyway :) I think the fight is worth having  
to try
to make sure the Guidelines don't become the be all and end all of
accessibilty. The people we are trying to help deserve better.

>
>

The "wizards" get the govt. contracts though.

--
Regards,
Jon Hanna

"It is the most shattering experience of a young man's life when he  
awakes
and quite reasonably says to himself, 'I will never play The Dane.'"
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 23:15:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:21 GMT