Re: w3.org remake

I agree wholeheartedly. Accessibility is an *essential* part of the 
worldwide web. Without it, what is left is just a web... not the 
Worldwide one.

Perhpas we can stop people using the first two 'w's of www unless they 
can demonstrate practical accessibility. They get awarded their second w 
for single A compliance, and their second for AA with user testing :)

"No, that's just w.aardvark.com"

William Loughborough wrote:
> In the draft version of beta w3.org <http://w3.org> is the usual Tim 
> quote and it's quite basic to our effort.
> 
> However:-
> 
> It has become clear that there are major flaws with the 
> acceptance/traction of the "designed in vs. bolted-on" manifesto within W3C.
> 
> If it is possible to do so, we should include a statement to the effect 
> that ALL Web Recommendations, etc. adhere in their 
> processes/actions/attitudes to this tenet. We must not consider 
> Accessibility as a sort of stepchild of "special needs" usability.
> 
> As long as it is permitted to treat it that way it cannot flourish. 
> Accessibility is an integral/essential part of Web design and it's way 
> past time that it's taken as a special concession to those who have been 
> shorted for thousands of years. The differences furnished by people with 
> functional diversity (usually this means what we refer to as 
> "disabilities") is necessary for the species and human culture to evolve 
> and avoid exinction, as happens with those who cannot adapt because of 
> their insistence on conformance with some "norm".
> 
> Love.
> 
> -- 
> http://www.boobam.org/webgeezermild.htm

-- 
Liam McGee
Managing Director
Communis Ltd

t: +44 (0)1373 836 476
w: www.communis.co.uk
twit: www.twitter.com/liammcgee

Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 12:36:38 UTC