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

Re: OFF TOPIC - Shame on Google

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:50:33 +0100
Message-ID: <48C06639.3020305@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
CC: "Accessys@smart.net" <accessys@smart.net>, wai-ig list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "wai-xtech@w3.org WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, webaim-forum@list.webaim.org

James Craig wrote:

> 
> 
> Speaking of getting around accessibility policies, I like to think 
> that's not out of intentional subversion, but out of pure ignorance. If 
> I assume it's intentional misdirection, I get bitter and start to lose 
> faith in humanity.

My experience of the tender process really pre-dates the mass market 
internet, and therefore the web.  Although I don't think this is the 
best example, an example I can think of is a policy that all development 
must be in Ada.  It was almost always possible for the buyer to get a 
dispensation from this if they liked the supplier.  As a bidder, the 
company I was with didn't really worry much about this requirement.

In the accessibility stakes, I am sure dispensations are often awarded 
if the buyer believes that enforcing the accessibility guidelines will 
compromise profitability or cash flow.  Cash flow is the worst, as it 
will lead to accessibility being deferred until you are no longer 
rushing to market, which tends never to happen.
-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2008 22:51:16 GMT

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