- From: Catherine Roy <croy@communautique.qc.ca>
- Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:51:01 -0400
- To: "Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com" <ken@clickforhelp.com>
- CC: 'eGovIG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi Ken, The clarification was unnecessary as I understood exactly what you meant and I continue to disagree with this position. Your article is not "(...) simply stating plainly what already occurs throughout society and government already" (which is a sweeping generalisation in itself). It is in fact suggesting policy or measures which condone less accessibility or "back-door access" for the sake of wider distribution and this is, in my humble opinion, not the role of this interest group. In addition to comments I have already submitted in my previous emails, I respectfully feel that your article, as it is written now, is subjective and controversial. This may be suitable material for a blog post but not for a document of this nature. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy Chargée de projets Communautique 514.948.6644, poste 222 http://www.communautique.qc.ca Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com wrote: > Hi Catherine > I put a clarification in the blog post for you: > > It seems some people are misunderstanding this as advocating abandoning > progress in accessibility. I assure you this is not the case. But it is > simply stating plainly what already occurs throughout society and government > already. If you look at multi-lingual issues, not every document in the US > from governments is immediately available in Chinese, or even Spanish for > that matter. EVERYONE is better served by as much government information as > possible being available in some way and that should be the priority. It is > imply not possible to make everything avilable in all possible ways but when > the need arises, on-demand services can supplement the less broad methods > of making information available. I hope this clears it up. > > Hope this helps. > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Catherine Roy > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:10 PM > To: Ken Fischer ClickForHelp.com > Cc: 'eGovIG' > Subject: Re: Multi-Channel Section First Draft from Ken > > Hi Ken, > > I am more comfortable with your proposal with regards to replacing > "accessibility" with "availability" though I still think what y'all are > talking about is access. I also think that the digital divide > encompasses more issues than "device", connectivity and accessibility > (such as gender issues, affordability, culture, etc., as evidenced most > notably by the enormous work done in the scope of WSIS) but I understand > that you are probably trying to address specific factors. > > However, I must say that I am most uncomfortable with the idea of > limited accessibility for the sake of prioritizing greater availability > or distribution (such as giving examples of library books and making the > analogy with on demand access to closed captioning). As it stands now > and as the field of accessibility evolves, I think that these sort of > statements could go against policies in certain areas with regards to > accessibility of online content and could even be, in certain cases, > percieved as discriminatory. Perhaps I misread your article and if so, I > apologise but in short, I feel that this document should not make > proposals that could be interpreted as suggesting specific policy which > could result in limiting access for certain types of populations. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > >
Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 19:51:45 UTC