- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 07:50:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: Denise Wood <Denise_Wood@operamail.com>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Well, we don't know (unless we look at the contract between teh Australian Open and IBM, which I presume is confidential) whether it was the developers, the comissioners, or both, who changed. As far as I know the committees organising Olympic Games are almost completely independent, and given that Salt Lake is in another country they are not the first place I would look to see a change in approach. But yes, I think we agree on all the substantive points here. On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Denise Wood wrote: CMNold >I wouold like to dispute a point in this email. It was > suggested that the > Olympics case had no impact, as shown by the inaccessible > site prodced for > the Salt Lake Winter Games. DW Valid point Charles - however the attitude/change in behavior I was referring to was the Olympics Organising Committee. It is certainly beneficial if a designer/developer learns as a result of legal case, but remember HREOC determined that it was the commissioning body responsible not the developers of the site. Hence my point, we also need to bring about a change in the attitudes of companies and organisations commissioning web sites - not just the designers/developers. CMNold >Also, I am participating in this discussion, and I do not think that > legislation is the primary reason why a site should be > accessible - it is > there because there are other good reasons, and it is a good > way to get > people's attention, in my opinion. DW We have no disagreement here either Charles. My comment in the email to which you are responding was that "I doubt any one contributing to this discussion would regard legislation as the primary reason that a web site should be accessible" and later in my email I stated "From my experience, citing legislation, and even better, referring to specific test cases does at least get people to listen". So on both these points we agree Charles! CMN My bad for not reading carefully enough then. cheers Chaals
Received on Monday, 14 January 2002 07:50:32 UTC