- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:54:29 -0700
- To: eowg <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
My creeping senility moved into a gallop as I tried to join the conference this morning instead of tomorrow! I have looked at the "retrofitting" document and its basis is still a bit muddled for me. Perhaps a bit about the difference between "outfitting" (the creation of Webstuff) and "retrofitting" (which is about how to repair an inaccessible site?) Although this will clearly come up a lot, I'm not sure that much can be all that different. It's not like we are doing what in the automobile maintenance/repair industry is called "detailing" in which small flaws are remedied - or if we are then I think the approach needs study and clarification. Are we actually deciding whether to simply scrap the offending entity and replace it with an accessible version? If not that, then is there any discernable method for "retrofitting", and should it come from an organization whose basic premise is that accessibility must be an integral part of the original construction and "retrofitting" is sort of like putting lipstick on a pig? What would help would be if at least the outline of the introduction became an instance of an exemplification of "short description of the content and scope of the document" instead of merely its label. I think what I mean is that without the actual *scope* itself, rather than the word "scope", I still don't know what this document intends to address. Love.
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 14:55:03 UTC