- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 13:15:18 -0700
- To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Al Gilman wrote: "The 'signs and portents' that we have a problem are all over the place. The troops are reduced to fighting amongst themselves because they can't seem to get to a point where they feel they have accomplished something. A bystander has muttered 'but, the Emperor has no Clothes.' How much more evidence do you need that this premise needs to be evaluated for validity before moving on further?" Reply: These "signs and portents" don't seem any more substantial to me than the alignment of Uranus and Jupiter. Make of them what you like. I can think of lots of reasons for the infighting on this list that have nothing to do with the validity of the document. Even in this discussion, opinions seem to be lining up along well-established fronts. A comment that the Emperor has no clothes is worthless in and of itself. What does this mean specifically? And where is the real evidence to support such a claim? Al: "Kelly has shown us that The Emperor Has No Clothes." Reply: Kelly has shown no such thing. I agree that labeling active elements is vitally important and should be included in the document. But it is an enormous leap from this statement to the view that the WCAG is invalid. Al: "This document is good for, but only fit for, internal consumption... There is no external audience for which it is an effective message. It is only half of the appropriate effective message for any audience that I can imagine targeting... It's not a valid deliverable. It is not an answer to any _stakeholder's_ problem." Reply: Again, lots of claims with little or no evidence to back them up. Why is the WCAG 2 only fit for internal consumption? How can you say that there is no external audience for which it is effective? Half an answer is still an answer. It seems to me that the intention of the current split is to put the general portion of the answer into the WCAG and the specific portions in the various techniques documents. I don't see why it is unreasonable to expect users to combine two documents to get the whole answer. Al: "To whom are we delivering what we have learned? How does what we hand them slide effortlessly into their world?" Reply: Who says it *should* slide effortlessly into their world? And who says it doesn't? Where is the evidence? So far I've seen only one specific problem -- labeling -- and that can easily be addressed within the current format. Al: "Just count up the number of voices that have asked 'Who _are_ the audience for this deliverable?' and you will have prima_facie evidence that the division laid out in our current plan for deliverables between part (a) and the rest would fail a consensus call, a vote of confidence, at this time." Reply: No, you'll have prima facie evidence that there is no agreement in this group on who is the intended audience. There's no obvious connection between a disagreement on audience and the division of the document into general and specific recommendations. Al: "The agenda for the F2F should treat this matter as a question, not as a given, or we will most likely just prolong a frustrating level of wheel-spinning in the group." Reply: I agree that the agenda for the F2F needs some work. We seem to have set aside lots of time to discuss specifics (and to hear what BG thinks we should be worrying about). I don't see any time set aside for discussion of much more fundamental issues -- issues upon which we seem to be unable to reach consensus. Without consensus on what the WCAG is and who it is for, the efforts to press forward with specifics -- while understandable -- may have the effect of creating a fait accompli for one point of view without the opposing points of view having had a fair hearing. What is clear to me from Al, William, and Jonathan's posts is that we do NOT have a consensus on the validity of our approach. Shouldn't we be devoting more time to the discussion of this before we rush forward with more detailed versions of our current design? I'd like to see some time set aside early on for this type of discussion. Chas. Munat
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2001 16:12:47 UTC