- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:05:44 -0800
- To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040331184036.02d8bb88@pop3.gorge.net>
At 06:18 PM 3/31/2004 -0500, Judy Brewer wrote:
>Please review and comment on the full resource suite before our
>teleconference this week
The Suite is presented as a resource containing building blocks with which
one can make a tailored business case for use in various environments and
from that point of view it need not be as "polished" as the individual
cases that are created using its content for inspiration/inclusion. This
means that the Overview sort of stands alone and that the other "factor"
sections are more reference points for someone creating a "business case".
The group has been working on this for several years and this
generaliz(s)ed format seems very suitable: let the user of the overview
create the business case document! Through this interactivity we exemplify
the process and give someone using this resource the ability to feel a part
of the effort.
OVERVIEW:
intro bullet 4 "It crystallizes [solidifies?] an organization's commitment
to social responsibility."
bullet 5 "It demonstrates compliance with appropriately defined
laws/regulations/standards concerning accessibility."
In general, reference is made to a "right to information". IMO this is the
central factor in all of this and hasn't been given a prominent enough
exposition. This is not only a completely new concept, but a quite radical
one and should quite possibly be addressed before anything else. In fact,
this is exactly what "accessibility" means and is at the root of providing
the oft-touted "level playing field".
SOCIAL FACTORS:
The intro contains near-gratuitous (because they are not widely used
outside this document) abbreviations: SRI and CSR. Their inclusion is
almost like satire. The references somehow seem suspect, probably because
unless one is "in the choir" they sound almost like religious contrivances:
the already-convinced don't need them and the "hard-hearted bean counters"
won't believe them. The point that "CSR" also has a financial upside is
less important than its inherent decency/humanity or even "spirituality".
It's good in and of itself without the need for a study showing that it
probably benefits the "bottom line".
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Social Factors need not (and
possibly should not) include the financial benefits.
TECHNICAL:
Might be an opportunity to include references to the work being done by the
Device Independence Group and thus include the notion that W3C provides
technological approaches that integrate
accessibility/interoperability/usability into methods that make their
understanding/application much more sensible than the previous means of
implementing Web stuff which largely tried to imitate printed
brochures/catalogs/forms.
FINANCIAL:
If possible, it might be a good place to put in a plug for hiring PWD. A
lot of this sounds similar to the usual pitches about how loyal/reliable
this community is and that attracting such employees brings tax benefits as
well as brownie points.
LEGAL/POLICY:
Perhaps references from here could include some notorious examples of legal
costs (not to mention attendant Public Relations costs) in other fields
that could logically presage similar instances in matters of accessibility.
The impact of ignored regulations can be devastating. Some variation on
"programmers are cheaper than lawyers" might be in order?
--
Love.
It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.620 / Virus Database: 399 - Release Date: 3/11/2004
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2004 00:06:36 UTC