Re: Second Draft Response To "Do No Harm" PR Issue

"Gregory J. Rosmaita" wrote:
> 
> Second Draft Response To "Do No Harm" Member Request
> for An Additional Conformance Level That Would Address
> ONLY The Accessibility of the Content Created by the Tool
> 
> NOTE: This response is a work-in-progress and does not
> reflect a consensus on the part of the Authoring Tools
> Working Group.  It has been reposted with the structural
> changes suggested at this afternoon's teleconference, in
> the hopes of prompting discussion, and to serve as the
> basis for Charles and my action item to unite the WG's
> aural and written responses into a cohesive whole.

[snip]
 
> Part 2. RESPONSE
> It is the consensus of the AUWG that one cannot
> possibly "do no harm" without addressing the
> accessibility of the tool itself.  Failure to do so would
> not only violate the Working Group's charter, but -- more
> significantly -- exclude a significant minority of users
> from expressing themselves online in an independent
> manner. Moreover, failure to address the device and
> input independence of the tool would seriously

"the input device independence"?

> compromise the ability of an even greater number of
> users who, as "situationally disabled" users (e.g.
> anyone using a mobile device), to maintain
> read/write access to the web.
> 

> As the above excerpts eloquently illustrate, 

I think you can drop "eloquently".

> it is the
> consensus of the AUWG 

I don't think you can use the word "consensus" here since
there are participants who do not yet agree to move ahead.

You can say that it was the consensus of those present at
the teleconference where this was discussed.

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Wednesday, 1 December 1999 07:42:42 UTC