- From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:58:26 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, nick@webthing.com
Nick and all... Sorry, I sent this to the wrong list. Please pursue on the guideline list, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org where I'm posting a (slightly edited) version... I just want to make a brief reply to what Nick said though. I definitely do want to take consideration X seriously. That's what I was trying to say. The question has to do with the process we're following in the guideline group. Some people have objected to accessibility guidelines because some authors will object some of the time. I'm trying to say that we don't throw out the guideline just because there are objections in some circumstances. The question is what process we follow in the guidelines group to address considerations X. Right now it's kind of ad hoc. Anyway, I'm continuing this in the guidelines list. Len nick wrote: >As to your question: it seems to me that accessibility cannot be >well-served by antagonising authors. This argues for always taking >Consideration X seriously, and and accommodating it wherever reasonable >(I think some of the more extreme examples you suggested fall down on >the reasonableness test). -- Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D. Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple University (215) 204-2247 (voice) (800) 750-7428 (TTY) http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday mailto:kasday@acm.org Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/
Received on Saturday, 30 December 2000 15:59:21 UTC