- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 13:40:57 -0800
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough)
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 01:36 PM 12/24/2000 , William Loughborough wrote: >In a certain sense "inclusion" carries a certain "dilution". >To put it another way, we need inclusion more than we need "poster children". Should we change our focus and make it "correct web design which can be used by all people"? Should we still be concerned primarily with people with disabilities? Or should we simply publish "web design the W3C way" as part of a semantic web effort? Is it important to even talk about those "poster children"? Would our guidelines on "how to do the web" be better if we didn't mention cripples at all? Maybe we could be more "inclusive" if we didn't even concern ourselves with people with disabilities. See, I have a definite opinion here that we _do_ need "poster children" if that means "not forgetting the human aspect of web accessibility", and I would gladly sacrifice "inclusion" if that means we have a stronger document that speaks up with voices that are not often heard. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Sr. Engineering Project Leader, Reef-Edapta http://www.reef.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Contributor, Special Edition Using XHTML http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml Unofficial Section 508 Checklist http://kynn.com/+section508
Received on Sunday, 24 December 2000 16:52:49 UTC