- From: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 09:42:04 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "William R Williams" <wrwilliams@fs.fed.us>
From: "William R Williams" <wrwilliams@fs.fed.us> Subject: 508, Accessibility & Obstacles > As you know, we are > required to meet the provisions of Section 508 for accessible E&IT; yet, in > advocating for compliance (and professional-level development), my job has > been nothing short of a nightmare since June 2001, I think the biggest problem is that there hasn't been a test-case of Section 508 that's gone the distance, so there is a big grey area where sites are "seen" to be accessible. Whereas your employers only want to dabble in the shallow end and "look" like they are being accessible, you see the need to wade in as far as you can to make sure that its accessible without a shadow of a doubt. I'm reminded by an analogy used by Alan Flavell in the newsgroup comp.info.www.authoring.html about a car that's been in a messy accident. Yes, polishing it all up can make it look good - but without fixing the structural damage (and the engine) its hardly in a fit state however it looks. > I've been accused of "undermining" the web efforts, probably by saying the current efforts are not up to scratch? The only suggestion I can make is to try in each instance to give as much _constructive_ feedback as possible - recognise the bits that are being done right. For example, the meme that just adding alt attributes is sufficient for accessibility, point out that "yes, it makes the _images_ more accessible than they originally were" -- that can't be construed as undermining. > being "on a crusade," arrogant, striving for nirvana, There'd be an element of truth in the last :-) In which case it raises the question "Surely offering our customers the best service we can offer is a good thing?" -- let them try to contradict the obvious! > and untold other derogatory statements have > been hurled my way. Whatever you do - don't let things like that get to you. I know its difficult. Its at times like these when I remind myself of the words of Winston Churchill: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." -- if they are not attacking you on the principle of accessibility, maybe they either don't have the knowledge to do so, or deep down they know you are right. > The bottom line: I just don't understand the > resistance, the pretentions -- and this has created an uncertainty, on my > part, about what is and/or what is not, accessible information. The resistance boils down to a few factors: * The "attack" on their belief that they must have done something right previously * The defensive posturing when something needs to be done, but without the knowledge of how it should be done right * The cheapest option route. > I really apologize for the length of this posting, and my level of > frustration Unfortunately frustration reproduces. Try and find the positive things that are currently being done right, and make a note of pointing them out. From what I gather, maybe everyone else doesn't understand the whys and wherefores - that's where you need to focus. Rather than just pointing out what needs to be done, cover why it needs to be done, and why the current solution doesn't meet those requirements. Unfortunately legislation is an interpretation, and where there's interpretation there's politics. There is a risk involved in not doing accessibility completely right, and that risk is legal in nature. Why not use that as an opportunity to get a statement from your legal department on the requirements? If they insist the low standards the organisation is aiming for is sufficient, then let it go (from an internal point of view). Just remember to keep the evidence that you pointed out the correct way but was ignored/shouted down. That way if it does all go pear shaped, you've got yourself covered - but don't use that as a weapon against them - keep it as a means of defense only. Mike.
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 04:44:16 UTC