- From: Michael Burks <mburks952@worldnet.att.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:13:06 -0500
- To: "'David Poehlman'" <poehlman1@comcast.net>, "'wai-ig list'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
David, You are so RIGHT! You can also go to http://www.cynthiasays.com which is the same site. Take care and thank you again for saying what we all need to keep in mind! Sincerely, Mike Burks -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Poehlman Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 9:42 AM To: wai-ig list Subject: when a suit is in the rong? In today's letigeous society, it is sad that it is possible even though all that can be done has been done that an entity can still be sued for lack of accessibility or in any case, compliance with someone's idea of accessibility even though the site is accessible. I would hope that compliat companies and entities out there who are producing and maintaining web sites are keenly aware that they need not be coerced into meeting someone's idea of accessibility if their site reflects the best of all possible worlds in this regard. I mention this because There is a growing sense that a tool alone is the measure of accessibility and defense of that tool by its producers or proponents is growing and because it is education that is important to the process and not the tool we use. I know of two instances where the tool is the rule and the tool fails to measure up. The tool can also be an entity using or producing or backing a tool. Being sued in the United states is not pleasant, but even more unpleasant is being sued even though you have followed someone's guidance in providing a site that is "accessible". To this end, we all need to work hard to educate the community towards accessibility which is not defined by the use of a particular tool but that is defined by good practices in site design and development. The W3C WWAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines v1.0 though having its ambiguities and pitfalls and being open in some cases to interpretation has stood many in good stead in achieving the goals implicit in best practice development. The techniques that accompany it and the expertise that has grown up around it has been fenoninal but can be undermined quite easily and soon if the notion that a tool is the end is allowed to flourish and prevail. Tools have their place but in the rong hands as we have seen, they can also become weapons of distruction. If someone asks you to enter into an agreement with them concerning making your site "accessible", make it clear that what you are buying is at least conformance with the p1 and p2 guidelines of the WCAG. In the case of course of the us government, make sure that you are getting a site that complies with section 508. The same goes for reviews. If someone reviews your site and tells you that it does not meet their specifications but they can help you meet those specifications, ask them instead to provide you with a site review based on either 508 if you are an us federal government entity or WCAG v1.0 p1 and p2. If you have been told that your site meets some notion of accessibility, find a way to have it looked at for p1 and p2 checkpoints or 508 even a spot check will do because if it fails, you are leaving someone out. For an easy test, go to: http://www.contentquality.com David Poehlman Reducing Technology's Disabilities
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 10:13:12 UTC