W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: WCAG 2.0 and JAWS

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 10:31:00 +0100
Message-ID: <5013B154.7030708@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
You certainly like your lengthy replies Karen...I'll just quickly 
comment that, unless I'm misreading your missive here, you seem to be 
under the assumption that I somehow work here? I don't. So I'll leave 
the more thorough answer to your...question/concern...to somebody from 
the W3C to answer (or from the fictional "you" that you use throughout 
in reference to the people involved in the W3C/WAI effort).



On 28/07/2012 06:36, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> Patrick, and all.
> Finally a moment for this.
> In context below...
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>> Who are you blaming here. "The W3C"? It is all of our shared
>> responsibility to educate the general public.
> Granted blame is a far stronger word than fits my posting.  I asked a
> still unanswered question.  Still, just who do you believe is the
> "general public" on the Internet?
>   Do you feel that small businesses in your area
>> know nothing about accessibility? Well, go on and educate them. Start
>> local groups with your peers.
> Patrick, there is no *local* or *area* where the Internet is concerned.
> I am  surprised at your comment given the context.
> Likewise as I just shared in a prior post, there are no peers either.
> All of us can find that we require access suddenly, and each individual
> is going to, as they should, define what that access means for them.
> If anything perhaps generalizing only seasons the confusion.
>> "Those in political arena are being told" by whom? Are you suggesting
>> "The W3C" is going out to politicians telling them about WCAG? Well,
>> that's not the case.
> That is far from what I said as well.
> Still lets be honest.
> I feel very sure that those on this list and the w3c do not generate
> these standards for fun.  I am almost certain that people do not travel
> to these meetings and take part on this committees for the genius or
> Budweiser either for that matter.
> You work as hard as you do in order to create uniform  standards that
> you want to see  implemented...and so they are.
> The work of the w3c gets written into legal jurisprudence, becomes the
> heart of, if not the foundation of   federal Provencal and state
> guidelines.
> People direct others to your door as a way of explaining what is often
> beyond them to explain.  People use your work to often cover for the
> work they cannot do themselves.
> They do it because of your reputation...and your reach.
> I still smile when I come across someone calling the w3 c the Internet
> police,  for many, no matter how unrealistic, you are seen that way.
> Court decisions henge on how someone has or has not used your standards,
> and rather a few in the rank and file have heard of you as well.
> It is unrealistic for those here to think your effort sits in some
> academic tower.  It impacts lives, millions of them.
> As a result my question was how you insure some basic understanding of
> that work via public relations outside of those you feel are in the choir.
> Site creators are very often folks who are running their business and
> taking a web design  package off a shelf, but wanting to reach people
> around the globe.   They learn, after they fail to allow access that
> they are  in need of more information, but haven't a clue what a java
> target is etc.
> They start asking the same sort of questions that began this thread,
> because they well do what many often do  on this list, find an
> individual ask what they use and fail to make the distinctions needful
> for real access across the board.
> My point Patrick is that this work does not exist in a vacuum, so i
> wondered how the w3c already lets the air in so to speak...if they do
> that is.
>> So, there's "a tool" that fails? Are you suggesting "The W3C" should
>> go out after the tool maker? Again, it is our shared responsibility to
>> call out tool manufacturers and charlatans in our industry that
>> promise solutions that don't deliver.
> Honestly?  again I ask who "our shared" refers to.  Also, if the w3c
> creates the standards, they have an important mandate to insure those
> standards are understood as widely as they wish them to be implemented.
> The reality is the the Internet is far from the size of our neighborhood
> anymore.  A lack of standards application can  prevent a person from
> accessing a site that lives on another Continent depending on on the
> business involved.  Via broad public relations, you can at least limit
> the ability of someone to do the sort of damage the tool I referenced
> does. If memory serves that program got a write up in the New York Times
> of all places.  There may already be a strong objective general media
> effort done by the w3c, if there is none, clearly there should be.  Not
> just because your work deserves correct implementation, but because the
> end user is only expert on one thing, how they individually  desire
> access to be defined, for them.
> Frankly that is why the focus on end user agents, instead of foundations
> that when tested with very general things insure universal door, has me
> worried.  There are many many tools and as man way to use them as humans
> behind the need to use them.  And of course, each time a user agent
> changes, the end user must struggle to start all over again in many cases.
>> Because you seem to think there's a uniform group at work here ("The
>> W3C"?). There isn't.
> Indeed? then why are those interested in access directed to a variation of
> www.w3c.org
> in order to find documentation and information regarding the wcag 2.0 then?
> Yes there are people behind that label, but your standards and work are
> represented as a part of that whole.
> We're all people who are interested in accessibility. Do you
>> feel there's little effort? Start an effort! Don't just sit back and
>> ask why nobody's doing anything about it ;)
> Patrick, that was not what I asked.
> I asked if there is a uniform public relations effort to accompany the
> uniform standards creation effort.
> What illustrated the need for this of course was the likely well
> intended, but profoundly misinformed question about the wcag and
> jaws...a state of misinformation that is far more  common than unusual.
> That such questions can still be asked suggests that the w3c may not be,
> or and I stress this, not to my knowledge matching standards with
> external media relations.
> As for starting my own movement, I am not sure why you feel I have not
> in a way?
> I think I have said on the few times I have posted here that I am a
> media professional, not a...hmmm w3c content creating professional smiles.
> My job is to notice where an audience is not getting the message.
> Your very writing a if there is a general public different from the
> other who benefits from access illustrates my point.  There is no us
> verses them here, no  community save the human one who shares in the
> Internet as a whole.
> Realize it or not, but rather a few see the w3c as the source for
> building rules on that super highway.  Such is why your word on access
> is taken so seriously. Many many many have no idea how to articulate
> what they should experience, and many many many more cannot understand
> what access means because they do not get much of a chance because many
> are focused on that us verses them...instead of, here is the common
> experience.
> Personally I end up asking for access as it applies to me, that by the
> way is all any individual can do.
> But that does not mean I am sitting back so to speak.
> One of the things I do as a  journalist via a common ground media
> umbrella associated with a nonprofit organization I have produced
> content for going on 20 years now is   encourage guide and even take
> care of the sort of media I feel should be happening.
> I do it as a consultant,  and I do it via the organization.
> Anyone wants to ask about  this, write me off list.  I  do not think I
> can hang a shingle out here.
> We are also always looking for international board-members, nice thing
> about being tax exempt is you can say thanks around tax day with
> deductions.
> But...my original question was if the w3c has a pr arm equal to the
> standards creating one to help curb the sort of assumptions that started
> this thread in the first place?
> Thanks,
> Karen Lewellen
> www.karenlewellen.com/services.htm
> www.karenlewellen.com/samples.htm
>   >
>> P
>> --
>> Patrick H. Lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
>> [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
>> www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
>> http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>> ______________________________________________________________

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2012 09:31:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:45 UTC