RE: My Action Item: Multiple interface guideline

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, William Loughborough wrote:

> At 04:09 PM 10/16/00 -0700, m. may wrote:
> >a much better-designed system could be built
> 
> "Could" could leave the people behind who are already behind enough. If 
> this sort of effort actually had much chance of happening it would be 
> wonderful but it is most often pie-in-the-sky. We know that the only way 
> any of this will actually get done is for there to be a sincere effort to 
> address the issue of real usability/accessibility but the efforts to date 
> have caused many of us to behave in fairly knee-jerk terms when some 
> proposal about what "could" be done is used to eventually do nothing.

I guess I fail to see what benefit is derived by putting lipstick on the
proverbial pig when the potential to do much better is there. Great, so
there's a conditional in there. If content providers want to comply with
WCAG, then, what is lost by giving organizations a chance to employ new
methodologies as they're developed to make better systems? (And isn't one
of the goals of WCAG 2 to create a living document that addresses new
technologies as they come along?)

I would be horribly disappointed to see the guidelines become obsolete
themselves, or worse, to hinder the kind of research we're discussing
here. If there's no aperture for forward-thinking accessibility techniques
in the context of WCAG compliance, then there's no market to be filled,
and no development resources outside of the educational world with which
to create the kinds of enabling technologies that could bring users with
disabilities closer to information. 

> I don't doubt that Ray Kurzweil thinks blindness will be "cured" along with 
> spinal cord severance and that many people think there's better ways to 
> supply competitively accessible information stuff to PWDs but the context 
> suggests that these prospects are often cruel hoaxes left on the planning 
> table as the *real* sites get priority.

Cruel hoaxes are not WCAG-compliant.

If content providers want to comply, it seems counterintuitive to attempt
to prevent them from improving the Way Things Are. The flexibility I'm
proposing here is the very _solution_ to the problem of accessibility
being left on the cutting-room floor.

----
matt

Received on Monday, 16 October 2000 22:02:55 UTC