Re: Character/Title of "root" documents?

Bill,

The difficulty in the current title of this resource suite is that we were 
looking for another way to say "here's a resource kit from which to build a 
customized business case for use within your organization," and not "we're 
trying to convince you that there's a solid case for accessibility." And so 
we came up with "Building the Case for Web Accessibility." I agree, 
particularly after reading your comments, that this is ambiguous, and that 
coupled with the tone of some parts of the suite, will give the wrong 
impression to some readers.

With regard to the tone of the suite, we should be able to fine-tune it as 
we get the thing edited and polished up. But even then, I think you're 
right that we may create misunderstandings among some of our audience just 
by the title alone.

Therefore, has anyone got any better ideas for the title for the suite, 
that we haven't already tried yet?

Regards,

- Judy

At 04:52 AM 6/6/2003 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
>Perhaps I'm coming late to the dance, but it seems to me that "building 
>the case for Web Accessibility" isn't actually where we're at.
>
>We've long been there and done that - the case is built and what we're 
>actually about is presenting said case.
>
>Once the policy makers have stuck their oars in and actually begun pulling 
>(and this clearly isn't just a U.S. Section 508 phenomenon any longer) the 
>need isn't to "build a case" but to present what we "experts" have known 
>all along - without "rubbing it in". We are still to a certain extent 
>behaving as if there was some significant (and even defensible?) argument 
>about whether everyone/everywhere should be connected.
>
>In the present instance for example, the tone expressed in the "may be 
>important", "might benefit", "may reduce time", etc. is way too 
>"cap-doffing/forelock-tugging". This is also still true in the policy 
>paper and perhaps in the other suite components. There is no longer 
>tenable disagreement in these matters (or won't be by the time we actually 
>publish).
>
>Fundamentally, the fact that there are actual on-the-books laws (call them 
>regulations or whatever if it suits one's timidity) about this stuff means 
>we don't need to cavil to the bigotry of ableist prejudices/misconceptions 
>any longer. It is the collective will of humanity that for us to all be in 
>this together demands our acknowledging that since we're all members of 
>one another that the principles of the WAI charter deserve forthright 
>presentation rather than the defensive posture currently presented by "it 
>might help you make money after all".
>
>--
>Love.
>
>It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!

-- 
Judy Brewer    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 200 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 17:52:34 UTC