Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle

I agree with bith Lisa, that we should be writing guidelines that define
accessibility, and leave legislation to lawyers, and with Kynn, that we
should provide them with the kind of information they will need to make their
decisions, to the best of our ability.

As a corollary, I don't think we are in a position to talk about what
something will cost. The price of programmers in the US is very high in
relation to the price of computers. That is not the case around the world.
Likewise, new software and tools are constantly being developed, probably
faster than this group can keep up with. That can have a very sudden and
dramatic effect on costs of accessibility.

Cheers

Charles McCN

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 8:12 AM +0200 1/3/01, Lisa Seeman wrote:
  >I do not think that that is our job.
  >
  >We are writing guidelines for how to be accessible.
  >
  >Legal minds must work out how to use that information in legislation. Part
  >of that process will be definition of formula for defining terms  such as
  >"due burden"

  Do you think it's valid for us not to define how much is too much,
  but when we know what the "burdens" might be, to list them?  It may
  be useful to prevent disinformation, for starters.  I'm assuming the
  legislators who would tackle this problem may not be authorities
  on web design practices.

  --Kynn


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 08:08:43 UTC