W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: examples of sites with good accessibility

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:44:48 -0500
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF01CC3524.07AE2D67-ON8625720D.001D898C-8625720D.0024FD69@us.ibm.com>
John said:
> Contributors to this specific thread have included long-time members

I absolutely agree!

> participants noted above are certainly of the "mature" caliber, and to
> suggest otherwise is unfair and borders on insulting.

I was talking about the list, as an abstract whole, not individuals.  If I 
insulted you or anyone else, please accept my apologies.  For the record, 
no one else commented to me.

>> Why do you think this list could reach
>> consensus on example good sites? 

> We may not know how to describe them, but we can tell when we've seen 
them.
> Why do think list members cannot?

Cannot what? - describe them?, or tell when we've seen them?, or my 
original question  - the list reach consensus on example sites?  Who is 
"we" in "we may not know how ..? the list or some group your are speaking 
for? 

You have made several points that help explain the answer to your own 
question.  I do not think this list can agree on example sites because, 
quoting from you:
1. the "community" is having an even harder time agreeing with some of the
consensuses [that the working group] reached.
2. there were at times conflicting agendas at the table.
3. sometimes there is conflicting "best practices" -
what may improve access for one group will disadvantage another.
4. participants in this thread have stressed the need for subjective
analysis,

>  None of this however should discredit the opinions offered to Anna 
> as she seeks to arm herself for the task at hand.

I wasn't judging or even discrediting any ones opinions.  But I am 
pointing out several things - my opinion is:
        1. that they [posts] are opinions, opinion of individuals who post 
to the list
        2. that this list doesn't follow any process like the working 
group follows
        3. that there are conflicting opinions

I offered my opinion [off list] to Anna and copied you, that I recommended 
implementing to WCAG 2.0.  The reasons I gave was that the working group 
needs and asked for implementation experience.  In my opinion, I can best 
arm Anna, and other readers, for the task at hand by not giving her any of 
my "subjective analysis or "conflicting best practices".  I recommended to 
Anna to use the techniques document as a "source" for "good example 
sites". 

> There are however many good examples of sites that are trying hard 
> to do it right, that are succeeding at many levels, and are emerging 
> as exemplars to both applaud and emulate.

I thinks so too.  But all the individuals on this list don't have the same 
list of examples, some on the list may not even have a list, and by nature 
of this being an interest list, no one even has to respond either way. And 
again, instead of sending Anna my list, I pointed her to the techniques 
document,  to what I thought had more value than my opinion.  You or any 
one else on this list can agree or disagree with my recommendations - 
that's the beauty of interests lists.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 06:45:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC