- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 06:21:42 -0700
- To: "Andrew Arch" <amja@optushome.com.au>, "EOWG" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
At 10:24 PM 7/5/01 +1000, Andrew Arch wrote:
>Minor updates and rearranging
Sorry to throw another mess on the table without the full means of cleaning
it up.
Historically, notions such as those expressed (rather well now, I think) in
the subject appendix come in sets of more than two. We have "increase
market share" and "improve efficiency" - I think we should consider
including one or two more such categories dealing with social and legal
considerations.
In the former "right thing to do" aspect we might either link to a proposed
"feel good about oneself" section Judy mentioned or have something about
the traditional role of society looking to inclusion for the benefit of
society, the organization and, not least of all, the included. Of course in
a "business case" discussion the idea of public relations emerges.
For the latter "it's the law" argument there are both legal and company
policy considerations. There's the old "programmers are cheaper than
lawyers" example in which the busy executive is avoiding future interferent
depositions ("Mr. Green, when did you know that your Website was required
by law to be accessible") and the dreaded memo from above ("the board of
directors has issued an ultimatum that...').
These can be almost "throwaways" but their inclusion may be more
relevant/persuasive than their bloating effect is confusing/densifying.
Although they are more in the vein of persuading adoption of an
accessibility policy, they also address aspects of implementation.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:21:28 UTC