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

Re: Character/Title of "root" documents?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:52:14 -0700
To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Message-id: <>
At 05:52 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>Therefore, has anyone got any better ideas for the title for the suite, 
>that we haven't already tried yet?

We should probably agree on an intended audience. Is this for people who 
have been assigned the task of convincing somebody (presumably a skeptic?) 
that providing accessibility is either good or demanded?

Over the first few years of the effort, the target was more indifferent 
than in opposition; there was some "softness" to the resistance to 
inclusion. Because of this we sent Judy off to Congress and Helle to some 
"Commission" and various Canadians, Australians, and others into the fray 
to try to centraliz(s)e the dicta that we had disguised as recommendations 
with the intent of making them requirements.

To a large extent this was successful and the evidence of this is in the 
myriad of statements largely echoing what we were espousing. There has 
become a class of specialists who consult in these matters all over the 
world, whom I laughingly call "508 ladies". By the time any of their 
services are contracted for, the entities involved are already resigned to 
the fact that something must be done to comply with the 

If this is the case, and I believe that it either already is or will soon 
be, then the "case" to build is "How Accessibility Increases Profit"- where 
"profit" is understood to mean a lot of different things besides just 
bottom line, although that is included. As advocates we can reach somewhat 
broad conclusions, mainly that in addition to complying with one's avowal 
to be inclusive, accessibility has a very high correlation with usability 
and that equals profit/growth and all the good things in life.If we feed 
the starving babies they will grow up to buy our stuff.

 From a slight remove, some of our current attitude seems rather defensive. 
It's OK to let doubters feel ridiculous when they say that there's no need 
for an elevator because they've never seen anybody in a wheel chair on the 
second floor. Inclusion is possibly even more important for the includers 
than for the includees and we are permitted to harp on that. Accessibility 
profits us all.


It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! 
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 19:52:33 UTC

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