RE: A proposal for changing the guidelines

I agree that we should think this through. And I think we should conclude (in
my humble, but considered opinion) that it is inappropriate for a body which
has undertaken the task of finding out what (internationally) are the
requirements for accessibility of the web to add to the onerous task the
requirement of fitting in with International law, an area in which most of us
are woefully ignorant. Slightly less appropriate, of course, would be to base
our work on the law of a couple of countries just because we know it better.

The education and outreach group has a specific mission to develop materials
and raise awareness among policy makers. Perhaps we should be providing them
with more feedback if we feel that there are specific areas that need to be
looked at differently from a policy perspective than from an accessibility
perspective. If we know of a particular country that is going to make a
decision we think is inappropriate, then those of us who are citizens of that
country, and the EO group as a representative of W3C, should make submissions
to the relevant bodies. But I seriously doubt we know enough about law and
policy around the world to be able to incorporate it into the priority scheme
in a helpful way, especially given the constant change both in it and in the
state of the art.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

  Some short notes and an important call....
  
  Short Notes (opinions not rulings)
  
  4) We should look again at the interaction of our priority guidelines and
  regulations.   In the past our priorities have been determined basically by
  what makes a page accessible.... Not by its ease of implementation.     If
  regulations are going to say Priority 1 and 2  -  then we need to think this
  through carefully.  I hate to say this but I think we do.

Received on Monday, 13 March 2000 10:48:10 UTC