Re: Kynn's Reply: Textual Images vs. Styled Text

At 04:42 PM 11/28/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>A guideline tells what to do, when to do it, and why to do it...I suggest 
>that WCAG be rechartered and redefined, and clearly state that the W3C has 
>no intent to issue guidelines

guideline noun "an indication or outline of policy or conduct"

Perhaps we can go into the dictionary business? The folks at 
yourdictionary.com don't seem to be doing it right. Their thesaurus doesn't 
even have an entry for "guideline" and I'm sure we can do it better. We do 
have an excellent view from our ivory tower, although somewhat blinded by 
our elitist attitudes. But then intellectual snobbery is a sign of good 
breeding, isn't it?

KB:: "How do I propose this to the WAI coordination group?"

WL: You just did. Len is on the CG. You don't even have to ask him nicely.

KB:: "I should note a terminology problem here -- there is no such term as 
"violating WCAG 1.0 Priority 2". WCAG 1.0 compliance is measured in terms 
of Single-A, Double-A, and Triple-A, not in terms of priority...it's a bit 
semi-backwards in thinking."

WL: But since Single-, Double-, and Triple-A are "measured in terms of" 
Priorities 1, 2, and 3 perhaps you can find it in your heart to forgive 
Len's difficulties with "terminology" - that would probably seal the CG 
proposition matter in your favor.

KB:: "I believe my answer is "no"; although I could argue for "yes" if I 
felt like it. (But I don't.)"

WL: I believe that in law school they train students to be comfortable 
taking either side of a matter before the court. Of course they don't get 
to decide whether they "feel like it" because the doctrinaire educational 
system forces them to follow the school's guidelines or they can't become 
lawyers.

  KB:: "Sometimes I am very discouraged about the world where live in, 
where such things are necessary."

WL: <lang="es">Pobrecito!</lang>

KB:: "I'm not trying to dodge your narrow question..."

WL: Right! Why dodge it when it's so much fun to obfuscate it?

These bandwidth-consuming diversions are absurd. It really doesn't matter 
what gets written in the document insofar as its imperviousness to 
contrarian notions of what it "means". Just as a Sovereign State (Alabama 
in the Garrett case) can pretend that they weren't discriminating against 
PWDs when the ADA was passed (infringing on their sovereignty), so can we 
pick apart anything written or spoken in a "did too" - "did not" debacle 
and pretend that we don't find a difference between text that must be read 
being depicted in a photo and a picture of a dog.

Perhaps we can start a Kynn vs. William thread and everybody can put a 
filter on for that, and we can indulge our passion for silly flaming as the 
rest get on with some form of rational discourse.


--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2000 22:12:36 UTC