Re: process of a site development

At 11:45 PM 1/30/2001 , Lisa Seeman wrote:
>Lets see,
>if we were to write "testing" and include in parenthesis "can include: , QA,
>project managers, usability consultants, automated done on four staging
>servers"

I could see a document like this being useful as a resource.  I
can't see it being a useful resource -generated by a working
group whose job it is to create technical specifications-.

Which is to say, if this is going to be written up and posted
on a publicly available web site by an informed person -- say,
Lisa, or anyone else -- or even posted by the Education and
Outreach group, I'd say it was a great thing and I'd link to 
it and happily refer people to it.

On the other hand, if this is going to be part of our WCAG
technical specification or something else released by this
working group, then I feel I must object strenuously to the
idea that we must either mandate or promote a single method 
of web site development, with the appearance that our chosen
method is the "best way to create an accessible site" or
"the way all sites are done" or whatever.

Such a scheme has no place _in WCAG_ or in this group which
is tasked with creating the next version of WCAG; defining the
web creation process -- or how we _think_ it should work --
is way, way out of scope for this group, and I feel that if
we want to create anything worth using _as an accessibility
reference_, we need to abandon the notion that we can force
our own concepts of "good web design" on the world by claiming
that "it helps accessibility if you only do things OUR way!"

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                http://kynn.com/
Technical Developer Relations, Reef           http://www.reef.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://idyllmtn.com/
Contributor, Special Ed. Using XHTML     http://kynn.com/+seuxhtml
Unofficial Section 508 Checklist       http://kynn.com/+section508

Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2001 12:10:10 UTC