- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 13:57:21 -0700
- To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
- Cc: Claude Sweet <sweetent@home.com>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, W3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 04:53 PM 10/26/1999 -0500, David Poehlman wrote: >if they can make it at all, they can make it accessible. we'll accept >no more excuses. So what happens if you don't accept their excuse? If they have a site that's functional, can be used by everyone in the company, and is accessible via a desginated "supported browser X" plus/minus assistive software, then they're not going to CARE if you accept their excuses for not making it work in lynx, Opera, pwWebspeak, or anything else. Using language that is too strident and doesn't take into account benefit-cost analyses and other business decisions will actually hurt the case of getting web accessibility accepted by fortune 500 companies and other businesses. This is one of the main failings of the WCAG, by the way -- the use of single-A/double-AA/triple-AAA as a defacto implementation guide, because the priority 1, 2, 3 ratings are based ENTIRELY on _benefit_ and not on _cost_, and therefore do not fit the criteria needed for adoption as part of a business plan. I hope to remedy this in the near future, BTW. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org> President, Governing Board Member HTML Writers Guild <URL:http://www.hwg.org> Director, Accessible Web Authoring Resources and Education Center <URL:http://aware.hwg.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 26 October 1999 17:06:01 UTC