W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: OFF TOPIC - Shame on Google

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:23:30 +0100
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>,John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
CC: wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>,"wai-xtech@w3.org WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>,webaim-forum@list.webaim.org
Message-Id: <20080903192330.M88616@ieee.org>

> I don't think it was off topic, I just think it was nitpicking on a  
> detail. While I do admit that I reacted more strongly because I  
> initially thought you were referring to the product rather than the  
> marketing piece, I stand by my defense that this is likely one  
> person's mistake, instead of something that should bring shame on  
> Google as a whole. There is other documentation after all, and  
> yesterday I didn't even find the comic book with a search. The 
> results  for "Google Chrome" came up with the download info and text 
>  documentation pages.

whether nitpicking, off-topic whatever... 

When was Google elevated to status of beyond reproach? 

If it was Microsoft being criticised would you have defended them in the same
manner? 


I work for a large corporate, and i can assure you that errors like this does
not reside with one person only. It was careless, and that's the end of it. 

Regards
Harry

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
 We do not inherit the Earth from our Parents-
 We are simply Borrowing it from our Children!
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~


---------- Original Message -----------
From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Sent: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 11:46:33 -0700
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC - Shame on Google

> John Foliot wrote:
> 
> > the fact remains that sometime prior to
> > today *somebody* should have said "...what about text equivalents  
> > for these
> > images?"
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > This time is was not meant to be either - it was a pure play "shame  
> > on you"
> > statement, which is one of the reasons why I also labeled the  
> > posting as OFF
> > TOPIC.  I was mad, sad and frustrated, and said so to a community that
> > shares in a common goal of improved web accessibility - it was not a
> > technical question or statement, and was not meant to be - it was  
> > very much
> > off topic.
> 
> I don't think it was off topic, I just think it was nitpicking on a  
> detail. While I do admit that I reacted more strongly because I  
> initially thought you were referring to the product rather than the  
> marketing piece, I stand by my defense that this is likely one  
> person's mistake, instead of something that should bring shame on  
> Google as a whole. There is other documentation after all, and  
> yesterday I didn't even find the comic book with a search. The 
> results  for "Google Chrome" came up with the download info and text 
>  documentation pages.
> 
> > No, Google dropped the ball in a very big way here, and if my  
> > commentary
> > comes across as too strident or "nit-picky" then I am sorry, but  
> > Google (the
> > corporate entity) deserves to be shamed here. You mention that I  
> > know a
> > number of people at Google who know and care about accessibility,  
> > but this
> > gaff transcends individuals and speaks to a corporate culture, not  
> > only at
> > Google, but at many large organizations - it's lip-service to  
> > accessibility
> > and disabled rights - how else could something this important be so  
> > ignored
> > when push comes to shove?
> 
> Corporate culture is still determined by individuals. I struggle 
> with  the same kind of apathy, and in my experience, shaming tactics 
> make  people recoil into a defensive stance rather than open up to 
> the  possibility of needed and worthwhile change. When companies are 
> on the  defensive from external attacks, it undermines the efforts 
> of  individuals attempting to persuade from the inside.
> 
> It's easy to forget how inaccessible (as a whole) Google was just 
> four  or five years ago. The reason it has come so far is not 
> because of  external shaming, but because of the hard work of people 
> on the inside.
> 
> > Given that Google probably has the original script supplied to Scott
> > McCloud, we can only surmise that it would have taken a Google web  
> > developer
> > even less time to do what Simon did.  They didn't, and for that I  
> > cry "For
> > shame!"
> 
> I'll concede that point, and perhaps this time the shame worked.  
> Jonathan Chetwynd just mentioned, "Google's already looking into  
> improving the accessibility of the web version of the comic." I 
> would,  however, encourage you to use shame as a last resort; used 
> too often,  it will its effectiveness.
> 
> Cheers,
> James
> 
> PS. Removed the GAWDS list from the CC because I'm no longer a 
> member  and it was bouncing.
------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2008 19:24:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:28 GMT