RE: 19 October 2000 minutes

At 02:13 PM 10/20/2000 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>Remember: priorities only depend on whether they cause difficulty for people with disabilities; implementation difficulty, or the degree to which a designer wants to use something, is irrelevant.

This is true, and this is why WCAG has little to no credibility among
web designers.

Please be careful about presenting this as a positive; it is a very
_serious flaw_ in WCAG 1.0 and it ultimately will be the cause of 
successful legal challenges to overturn policies requiring WCAG
compliance.

Granted, that's not our concern; our goal is "only to make nice
theoretical documents which can't be used by most people but at least
we describe a perfect world which doesn't exist."

If I had the time and the resources, I would do exactly what Gregg
described is bound to happen -- I would create an HTML Writers Guild's
accessibility guideline document as a model for our members to follow.
This is going to continue to happen -- a fragmenting of accessibility
guidelines, each group or agency or government making their own set,
picking and choosing -- as long as WAI continues to stick its head in
the sand and refuse to look at realities instead of hypotheticals.

--Kynn

(PS:  Have you ever noticed that there is absolutely no difference
       between priority 2 and priority 1 requirements?)

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 19:29:10 UTC