- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 09:06:26 -0700
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 08:36 AM 10/5/2001 , Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >At our teleconference today (actually yesterday now) , we killed >consensus item C-6, which read: > >“C-6. GL should provide hooks in WCAG to allow someone to provide a way >for people to measure access against particular disabilities, but it >should not be used for conformance.” > >It was decided that it was too dangerous to put hooks into the >guidelines which could be used by people to selectively extract >guidelines by disability. We continue to affirm C-5, which stated that >information about the benefit to people with different disabilities >should be part of the guidelines. But we felt that any mechanisms that >might be used for automatic sorting or pruning were not a good idea. I don't understand why it's "too dangerous." At best we are saying "do not include rich enough metadata to allow repurposing, restructuring, and re-use, because we fear that someone might 'misuse' our data." This is the type of argument which is often presented (by "designers") against accessible web design. This is not "too dangerous", this is a natural and logical consequence of rich metadata and access to that information, and it is hypocritical and highly inappropriate to avoid providing this type of information because of fear it might be "misused." This is a dangerous precedent to set, to say that repurposing is okay as long as you don't do anything the content originator wouldn't like to see -- it goes against our core principles of accessibility. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:09:19 UTC