- From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC <Norman.B.Robinson@usps.gov>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:48:48 -0500
- To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Well then; let me chime in. My professional role is advocate for support of Section 508. My personal role is years of suffering through bad technology and process and a perspective on accessibility as a user, software developer, systems integration engineer, and program manager. I welcome the current debate on the subject; please argue your points as strongly as possible. Take it personally, because let me tell you on no uncertain terms it is personal. Not in the sense that someone is arguing with you or against you, but because there are individuals that rely on *YOU* and what you do now. Don't just focus on the semantics or rationalize your role as not being involved with others for administrative process reasons. There is someone sitting on the other end of a computer who's life is affected by your participation. With all due respect to the poster, the discussion of sufficient vs. necessary is a logic trap. Sufficient is barely enough. The title of this group has something to do with "accessibility" somewhere doesn't it? If you settle for sufficient, you are doing a sufficient job. We need excellence. Necessary equates to required. Yet, we all know that we have seen content that will not validate and it was accessible. Obviously, validation wasn't necessary. But why? I submit you can't know without all the particulars, just as if you had validation on content and then it was not accessible. At least if their was a review for validation you can further logically determine it is either the validation process failed or the technology using the content failed. Validation should be required so the toolset or developers can have a standard to test against and increase the likelihood they will make a quality product. Rather than just argue the point again, I'll see if I can get to review your current guidelines in consideration of the current line of debate. That at least will drive this to something specific for you all to consider. I'll repeat my premise: validation is required. Not necessary, but required. If the WAI doesn't accept and solve this challenge, all your hard work will be resolved by lawyers, not people that have a chance to understand the technical and social issues based on the current technologies. Let me leave with a comment on this debate. I have a great deal of respect for those that fight to clarify the issues. I intend no disrespect and hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong. We're all in this together and need to focus on the positive and plan on how things fail. Regards, Norman B. Robinson
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 17:48:59 UTC