W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-eo-editors@w3.org > April 2004

RE: policy semantics

From: Shawn Lawton Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:15:40 -0500
To: "'William Loughborough'" <love26@gorge.net>
Cc: "wai eo editors" <wai-eo-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c4218b$b5d4cf10$418d7544@SLHenry>

William,

Thank you for your review and comments on the business case. I will post
a revised version with your changes and other's changes soon. 

Replies to your comments are below surrounded by brackets []. Let me
know if you want to discuss any of them.

Regards,

~ Shawn



[DONE - edited all 3 instances] In the overview document introduction
section "... Web accessibility helps 
organizations avoid liability" seems too much like the sort of advice
one 
gives to help miscreants
avoid prosecution or evade taxes! Later in the "Identify the
Organization's 
Interests" section this stance is "softened" to "...wanting to show its 
leadership as a socially responsible organization" and later under
"Sample 
Outlines for Different Environments" is the somewhat colder "avoidance
of 
legal exposure" bullet.

[should be covered now separately in the Legal & Policy and Social page,
rather than the Overview page] I think some way should be found to use
language that doesn't appear 
threatening, but still informs the reader that this stuff is now, and
will 
likely increasingly become, THE LAW. Whether this is accomplished by 
commending "good citizenship" or pointing out the sanctions of
regulations 
and public opinion, our choices of approach should be carefully chosen.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Loughborough [mailto:love26@gorge.net] 
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:40 AM
> To: Shawn Lawton Henry; 'EOWG (E-mail)'
> Subject: policy semantics
> 
> 
> At 09:50 AM 3/25/2004 -0600, Shawn Lawton Henry wrote:
> >Presenting the Case for Web Accessibility
> 
> I likely will sleep through the conference!
> 
> I would like to comment on a feature that is addressed in two 
> different 
> ways throughout the resources, having to do with the 
> relationship between 
> the "liability" and "social responsibility" points of view. 
> Although my 
> usual stance has sided with the "it's the law!" viewpoint, I 
> also recognize 
> the merit of complimenting folks on their being "good 
> citizens" in these 
> matters so:
> 
> In the overview document introduction section "... Web 
> accessibility helps 
> organizations avoid liability" seems too much like the sort 
> of advice one 
> gives to help miscreants
> avoid prosecution or evade taxes! Later in the "Identify the 
> Organization's 
> Interests" section this stance is "softened" to "...wanting 
> to show its 
> leadership as a socially responsible organization" and later 
> under "Sample 
> Outlines for Different Environments" is the somewhat colder 
> "avoidance of 
> legal exposure" bullet.
> 
> I think some way should be found to use language that doesn't appear 
> threatening, but still informs the reader that this stuff is 
> now, and will 
> likely increasingly become, THE LAW. Whether this is accomplished by 
> commending "good citizenship" or pointing out the sanctions 
> of regulations 
> and public opinion, our choices of approach should be 
> carefully chosen.
> 
> --
> Love.
> 
> It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 15:54:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 January 2010 00:13:10 GMT