Re: WCAG usability Re: Multiple versions of a web page

At 8:26 AM -0500 12/27/01, David Poehlman wrote:
>Kynn, it seems that web accessibility was borne with you if we are to
>take what you say litterally.

Excuse me?  I beg your pardon?

>I am going to take one statement and
>paraphrase it and refute it.  If this statement is not attributable to
>you, we can blame it on my screen reader and I would think you would
>know better than to make such a statement so I am in doubt that I heard
>it from you.

Okay, let's see that statement.  This is it?

>wcag was never tested.

I don't believe I said "WCAG was never tested", no.  And certainly if
you read it in context, I stated that there were specific types of
tests which have not been done in a vigorous manner.

>As wcag was being developped, there was a lot of testing that went into
>it.  In fact, you can see lots of test pages that were created aand lots
>of techniques for following the guidelines that were developped based on
>lots of feedback from lots of users under varying circumstances and the
>addition is still going on.

Good, so where are the hard statistics in measurable numbers on how
much accessibility is improved if you follow WCAG 1.0 Single-A,
WCAG 1.0 Double-A, and WCAG 1.0 Triple-A?  Kindly point them to me,
or more properly, kindly concede the point that the type of testing
I'm _talking_ about has not yet been done, and these particular
bits of information are not available.

Please don't accuse me of thinking "web accessibility was borne
with me" as a way of avoiding issues.  Nothing annoys me more than
personal insults in lieu of addressing legitimate criticism and
identification of a valid need.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201

Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 11:17:44 UTC