W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1998

Re: web accessability of california transit agency

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 13:43:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Kelly Pierce <kelly@ripco.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9811291308040.17673-100000@shell.clark.net>
This is an official complaint and I hope it is taken as such:
I David Poehlman, the above as  identified and submittent in the matter of
the post of this
subject, Here in lodge a formal complaint against the original poster of
this subjects message as follows:
1> there are unwritten rules that all good netezins follow Several of
which (sited below), you have managed to breake.
a> email messages should not acceed a length that would result in an undue
burden on the recipiants equipment and recieving process.  you have in
particular violated this on several occasions on this and other lists.  It
will come to an end. this problem is further exacerbated by the fact that
everything in this message appears twice.
b> email that is considered no matter how unwittingly as a priviliged
communication will not be published with out due permissions and cause by
the originator of that email.
c> any email will be sent in full and proper order intact and not altered
that is forwarded or otherwise transmitted unless clearly noted as

2> In an earlier message on this topic, I requested the address of the
offending url and you would think that with the proponderance of material
you have provided here, that the url would have been present.  If it is I
owe you an apology but my scan did not find it.  It is customary for the
url of a site to be given when questions of its accessibility arise.

4> I maintain after reviewing the documentation provided in this message
that the enactant did not take all steps to ensure that the material in
question was not accessible.  Again, I ask you? Was webwatch-l notified of
difficulties with this site and asked to assist?  I think not.  Further,
in describing the two biggest barriers to access, it seems that it might
have been prudent to try downloading and opening the one file that semed
difficult on another computer and try using the several methods for
accessing the pdf file that have been and still are available.

5> This is a warning to all that might take up the mighty sword of the ada
in defense of access.  If you read the memo of ada complience that
accompanied the letter in the previous post of the subject of this
message, you'll see that it actually does damage to accessibility but
follows the ada.  I have warned before folks.  the ada is not the answer.
Accessibility should b not should be if we want it.  the ada directs that
if we need it we will have it.  Not good enough.  take a lesson from 508.
Take a lesson from section 255 of the telecom act.  I should not have to
ask for accessible materials to a public materials establishment?  I
should be able to ask for the materials that are accessible and those
should be all that should be acessible.  Unless we take the correct
position on this and forcefully so, things will remain just out of our
reach or will only be within our reach when we "ask" for them.  Oh, one
more thing before I end my complaint.  The enactant of the complaint asked
if the transit authority worked with the public when designing other
systems? the answer is yes.  I've seen traffic patern analyses and serveys
that bely his assertion that the public is not consulted in matters of
transit pollicy.
This is the end of my long rant.  I welcome all flames and possitive
feedback and encourage those responding to think as to whether to do so
privately or publicly.
P.s. I sometimes wonder if this person is real.

Hands-On-Technolog(eye)s touching the internet
voice: 1-(301) 949-7599
Dynamic solutions Inc.
Best of service for your Small Business network Needs
Received on Sunday, 29 November 1998 13:43:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:02 UTC