- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 06:12:51 -0800
- To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Josh Krieger writes: >I suspect that if we are to try and create a PICS based accessibility >rating system, it needs to encompass both a human judgement of >accessibility AND an automated judgement of accessibility. WL:: It has been pointed out about Josh's "rating system" Bobby that there are lots of scenarios including accessible sites failing as well as inaccessible sites certified OK. This will be even more true for the problem of ensuring that sites are *pragmatically* accessible. Just as we use highway patrolmen to insure that automobiles using the public roads are in "financially responsible" hands, so we will probably have to utilize "web police" (like folks on the webwatch list) to assure the complianace of web authors with the standards required by law. Just as it is possible to forge "proof of insurance coverage" it is possible to put gibberish in alt-tags, so we must be watchful for sincere compliance or the poor unfortunate web authors will find themselves embroiled in law suits because of their sociopathic behavior <g>. Oprah Winfrey is on trial in Texas because she said she wasn't going to eat any more hamburgers! It would be a shame if the webmaster for Walt Disney had to explain why Mickey Mouse didn't have a DESCRIPTION. Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 1998 09:13:43 UTC