- From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:32:37 +0100
- To: "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- CC: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) wrote: > > Maurizio Boscarol sent a Friday, November 25, 2005 7:03 AM message with > the topic "Re: R: Congratulations !!"; > > "We are doing technical requirements for products or processes, not > laws. Sad, but someone can't see the difference." > >Roberto: >Yes, but don't cry like a crocodile if nobody apply wcag "as is" for national law. >I want to remember that one of the scope for what WAI was financed by EU was to have appicable standards. > Are you pulling my leg? Admit it!.. Well, or you misunderstood me. To be clear: I *never* wanted wcag be a law. You want, not me! :) I couldn't cry for that, believe me. (1) We don't even know how much effort is needed to be wcag compliant in reality. A law must take in account the cost/benefit ratio. Tech requirements don't always have to. They try to set standards. To follow a standard a multi-part agreement is needed: * Tools-makers (browsers, ua, at, cms, plugin, dev framework) should accept to implement the proposed standard. * Government should be sure that a standard can reasonably be followed (at a reasonable cost, with reasonable effort, without bad consequencies, etc) before to make a law forcing to that standard. So the point is really more complex than just have a law forcing somebody to do something. :) But we're going OT. M. (1) For what it deserve, I'd like people making more User Centred Design. But I couldn't help a law forcing people doing usability testing. I think this should be good, but forcing things that way without considering applicability in real contexts is a bad idea even if usability testing is good. Let's imagine valid code...
Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 16:21:53 UTC