- From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC <Norman.B.Robinson@usps.gov>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:10:00 -0500
- To: "Maurizio Boscarol" <maurizio@usabile.it>, "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Maurizio Boscarol sent a Friday, November 25, 2005 7:03 AM message with the topic "Re: R: Congratulations !!"; "If you go on thinking this kind of things can be done by law, I wish you good luck, policeman." I believe if there is a law, then in _can_ be enforced as required. "Another thing I note is that I thought we should talk about the relationship between well-formed, valid, or compliant code on one side and accessibility (in theory and in real world) on the other." I agree! While my official position involves dealing with the legal requirement (Section 508) of accessibility, I feel strongly that the code or content creation is where accessibility is best addressed - not by having laws that don't help create. I know there is a relationship, but expressed differently, if the content was always accessible a law wouldn't be needed. "We are doing technical requirements for products or processes, not laws. Sad, but someone can't see the difference." There is a difference between standards and legal codes. However, most legal codes reference a specification or standard since the standard should embody the efforts of a community to come up with the best practices and approaches that work for the most people. This is one reason I try to respectfully debate these issues in this forum, before a legal requirement is created by new code referencing a standard that didn't take a lawmaker's point of view into account. Don't give up! You and others help every time you focus on the positive and try your best. May we all grow wiser in the debate. Regards, Norman Robinson
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 15:10:25 UTC