RE: Green Fingers

The statement "it doesn't really have to wait until that is actually
do-able, just theoretically do-able and under development" is not
consistent with a recent conference call discussion about how the WCAG
guidelines are used as a guide for government regulations.

I agree that we should focus on potential solutions, but I also think we
ultimately have to make the guidelines feasible to implement, from a
technical and a business standpoint. Wording we've considered, such as
"as appropriate to the audience and content" gives us a forum to present
the techniques, but not require it for every site. 

Annuska

-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Pemberton [mailto:apembert@erols.com]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 4:47 PM
To: Matt May; Jonathan Chetwynd; Bailey, Bruce; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Green Fingers


Matt,

    The guidelines, especially Version 1, including a lot of things that
were simply not do-able yet, so if a version of the guidelines comes out
advocating use of a symbolic version, it doesn't really have to wait
until
that is actually do-able, just theoretically do-able and under
development. 

Look again at my sample ideal pages, especially the one with checkpoint
3.2
... what is missing that is needed? What is there that shouldn't be? 

The question isn't whether my research is better than your research, the
question is how to fix it. 

The WCAG promises that the guidelines will result in pages usable by
disabled persons, so if the flashy stuff is needed by some disabled
people,
the promise isn't fulfilled. The WCAG promise that the income of
disabled
persons will flow to those who follow the guidelines is broken if the
guidelines even hint that a site should NOT include stuff needed by
Jonathon's folks. 

				Anne

	

	

At 03:41 PM 4/23/01 -0700, Matt May wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jonathan Chetwynd
>> However, I am not seeking a universal solution applicable to all web
pages
>
>WCAG _is_ seeking this, or at least something as close to this as
possible.
>
>> They do not have acccess to income let alone purchasing power,
>> so arguments regarding cost are completely irrelevant, it is a need
>> and it must be met, just not by everyone just now.
>
>Of course cost is relevant. It takes money as well as time to make
changes
>to content, and if that money isn't there in an organization to change
it,
>it doesn't get done. The ability and resources of the content providers
is
>extremely relevant to what kind of change can be effected.
>
>-
>m
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Monday, 23 April 2001 20:29:11 UTC