RE: My Action Item: Multiple interface guideline

At 07:02 PM 10/16/00 -0700, m. may wrote:
>The flexibility I'm proposing here

I am in full agreement with your sentiments but I don't find an actual 
concrete proposal. I have not met you at a F2F (if so that event has 
dissolved in the mists of my antiquity) or sensed your participation in the 
teleconferences. Unless this is a "vaporprop", cruelly raising our hopes of 
an "aperture for forward-thinking accessibility techniques
in the context of WCAG compliance" (catchy phrase, thank you), it's a "good 
thing".

MM:: "If content providers want to comply, it seems counterintuitive to 
attempt to prevent them from improving the Way Things Are."

WL: Previous experiences indicate that the "urge to comply" and their idea 
of "improving" are usually driven by something other than concerns with 
accessibility/usability - it's not all that easy to use the Web for the 
things shown in TV commercials, let alone the incredibly promising 
connectivity that seems possible. At the risk of further ridicule for using 
lofty seemingly-diagonal catch-phrases "justice delayed is justice denied" 
and that is what is an all-too-pragmatic answer to your question: "what is 
lost by giving organizations a chance to employ new methodologies as 
they're developed?" If the new methodologies are as important to our goals 
as, say, Flash then I don't think we're missing all that much.

So please put up a proposal that can be discussed, dissected, disseminated, 
and directed - we obviously need all the help we can get.

Incidentally "prevent them from improving the Way Things Are" imputes to 
us  (and probably to them as well) a motive that is, IMHO, entirely absent. 
First there is no "prevention"; second there's not really much "improving" 
being stultified.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2000 09:23:03 UTC