W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2003


From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sun, 04 May 2003 06:57:44 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

The changes to the "questions" sections of the policy draft are clearly 
attention-getting. The effect is softened (to its detriment?) by having the 
sub-bullets be almost essays, rather than retaining the impact of instant 
comprehension. For example the first such is "Some governments may not have 
laws that are specific to Web accessibility, but may nevertheless have 
applicable regulations, directives, or other requirements, based on other 
relevant laws or policies such general anti-discrimination legislation or 
general information and communications technology policy." This reads like 
the heading of the policy "table" which shows whether whatever entity you 
look up has this as a recommendation or a requirement or a suggestion or 

This is possibly left to a different part of the page, or even a linked-to 
version of the policy listings, which could indicate by some appropriate 
presentational means which entries are laws/regulations/directives/other. 
The impact of "require" is weakened (unnecessarily?) by all these caveats. 
The point we are trying to get across (at least I hope this is the case) is 
that it is imperative that accessibility be a primary consideration in the 
design of any Web materials. Although men with machine guns and badges may 
not show up if you fail to do this, it is in a way what might be simulated. 
You don't have to comply, but if you don't you'll be sorry, either because 
of legal actions or later conscience pangs!

This section should be extremely terse and its impact only ameliorated by 
externally linked-to caveats. (IMO and my .02 euros worth)

So I propose something in the vein of avoiding a copout like "...may not 
have laws..." and saying something like: "These requirements are specified 
(whether as laws/regulations/directives/policies) at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/Overview.html ". I agree with the idea that 
the overview should include some private policy statements thought perhaps 
there are too many around to do that. Couldn't hurt to have all W3C member 
entities submit accessibility policies for inclusion therein? All W3C 
members do have such policies, right?


It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! 
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2003 10:06:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:34 UTC