- From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:09:01 -0400
- To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, 'Lisa Seeman' <lisa@ubaccess.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <D9ABD8212AFB094C855045AD80FB40DD0613F4CF@1wfmail.watchfire.com>
I agree with you as well. I think our job is to define accessibility. We need some minimal definition of conformance, but I question scoping the claim, at least in our own definition of conformance. If particular adopters (companies, legal entities) want to add scoping, that's their business. There is a kind of minimal scoping built into the guidelines that Gregg pointed out yesterday, e.g., guideline 4.1 requires at level 1 that documents validate against technology specification unless there's a good reason not to, but at level 3 says there are no exceptions. I think there are good reasons for having that kind of "scope" built into the guidelines but other kinds (date-based or section of site-based or even content type-based) are not really important to the definition of an accessible site. The one thing that perhaps does belong is a statement that "a page is only accessible if paths to it are accessible" and maybe "an application is accessible only if all components of it are accessible". But it should be up to others to figure out a scope definition that meets those requirements, if scoping is desired by those others. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Yvette P. Hoitink [mailto:y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 9:04 AM To: 'Lisa Seeman'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: having slept on the conversation.... Lisa wrote: i have a deep concern about the direction of the scope argument. IE: that people can claim a site conformance based on new content being accessible whilst i understand that this is difficult to deal with legacy pages, even with the scope of tools out there to help and make it easer, still dealing with inaccessible legacy pages its a practical problem. However inaccessible content is inaccessible content. if we create a conformance statement that allows people to claim accessibility with a scope that actually means that most of their site is inaccessible, why will they ever address legacy pages, and the web will stay inaccessible. Let them claim accessibility on a per page basis, let them make a press statements that 99% of hits on their site is to accessible content (if old content is inaccessible is not so important). The reason that i see this as a death wish on accessibility is because so much important content is legacy. and with this scope option it will stay inaccessible legacy. Imagine if the whole Gutenberg project was inaccessible. In providing this scope it would never become accessible. archived content should be made accessible. Why shouldn't a person with a disability be able to do internet research , like the rest of us? Ah, yes, i forgot, because it is difficult, off putting, bad for adoption of these standards. but sometimes i find myself asking - what standards? What are we? Are we a body creating guidelines about making the web accessible or a body of industry representatives trying to create an accessibility stamp that is suits their needs? ? Thank you Lisa, for expressing so well what has been bothering me too. I absolutely agree with you. We're supposed to make guidelines that organizations can use to determine if their web content is accessible. If their web content is inaccessible, we shouldn't offer a way to claim accessibility. If that means some corporate website get labelled as inaccessible because (in their opinion) it's an undue burden to change all the legacy content, so be it. Their website really is inaccessible after all, which people with disabilities will encounter if they want to access the legacy content. As has been said before, by making the guidelines we drive the creation of tools. In other words: we determine what will be easy to do in the future. If we decide not to offer an easy way out for legacy content, this will stimulate the creation of tools to address problems with legacy content. This can only help to achieve what should be our primary goal: accessibility of the web for all. Yvette Hoitink Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl <mailto:y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl> WWW: http://www.heritas.nl <http://www.heritas.nl>
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2004 14:06:40 UTC