- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 06:10:39 -0700
- To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
- Cc: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 11:08 PM 4/27/01 -0700, Matt May wrote: >How can browser vendors ensure that their product satisfies the >specification without at least the implicit requirement that they >understand the issues affecting them? For that matter, how did anyone pass >freshman English without reading what was required of them? The idea isn't to "satisfy the specification" - we are not making *requirements* but *guidelines*, i.e. not some ISO standard that enables one to measure the steepness of a ramp but *recommendations* we have discovered/tested/espoused that make the Web more accessible, in particular for people who are, or will certainly become, increasingly less able to acquire information from this wonderful network. As to the "pass freshman English" part, there are countless ways to do that not only without reading what was required but without reading at all. I never read what was required and Connie Hawkins (and many athletes) could have "passed" without even going to class so long as they could win at sports. Further the reliance on such absurdities as "IQ >/= 40" have no standing. The idea of "priorities" should have been outside our charter but it's now going to take up a lot of time/effort/atmothermalization so we just have to live with it. If we recommend that stuff be clear/simple/illustrated/+ and give examples and techniques for doing so, we will have contributed to a better WWW and if we move away from the idea of a Semantic Web towards a Pedantic Web we all suffer, including our clients. We need not fear that our *requirements* are too troublesome because the regulators will pick/choose among them anyway. At the final level there will be some "rule of law" process in which our part is more "expert witness" than "police". Incidentally I read Godel/Einstein and listen to Bach/Ellington and look at Vermeer/Picasso even though my "IQ" in their matters is negligible - it may be that our goals are not to regulate but to enable and if we love one another enough we can *recommend* stuff that might help in said enablement. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2001 09:09:37 UTC