- From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:16:01 -0500 (EST)
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sorry forgot to send to the list.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: The way of the wai: From: "Steven Dale" <sdale@stevendale.com> Date: Tue, March 30, 2004 5:07 pm To: <poehlman1@comcast.net> First, let me say that I am not trying to be a troublemaker here. I am only trying to help. This topic may have been discussed many times on this and other lists, but apparently the people that see my point didnt make themselves clear or WAI was not (or could not be) in a position to see it at that time. David Poehlman said: > > The WAI delivers its results through the efforts of many people > through many disciplines. As it should be. No one can be an expert in the whole accessiblity issue. > One thing that hampers us is that in some areas, it > is either difficult or impossible to find the necessary expertise to > direct development of its deliverables. Understood. > We have at users, at > developpers, site developpers and many others provide input into the > evolution of > deliverables. And my point all along is that the USERS of at should be the ULTIMATE input into the deliverables. These suggestions from users CANNOT be swept aside because it makes no sense in the current or future development of standard website design. I am a big proponent of standards, but these standards MUST NOT compromise accessiblity, they must ENABLE accessiblity. This is a very tough thing to accomplish, granted, but that is why WAI was founded. Please dont give into the easy way out, please keep in mind WHO BENEFITS from this activity. > > > The archives of this and the other public lists will bear out the > journeys that have and are taking place in order to fullfill the > goals and desires of all of us. Where those goals and or desires > seem to conflict, we work to resolve the differences and we all learn > and gain in the process. Yes, it is a growing process. > > If something needs to change, we should find out what it is and change > it. We need to analyze what the problem REALLY is and not offer solutions that suggest only one way of possibly correcting it while poo pooing other ways without serious consideration of what problem is attempted to be corrected. >If something is correct, let's make sure we know what it is. I think a knowledge base system would be a great idea for this. Something that can be updated and modified as we learn what works and what doesnt. Waiting for the next standard to go through the approval procees in order to distribute this information causes a great delay and many correct ideas may be forgotten by then. The standards should gather information from these knowledge bases when it comes time to update the standards. These knowledge bases should have many ideas on how to solve many types of problems encountered. A possible solution should be included no matter how politically wrong it is. Given that it may be politcally wrong, it may not be perfect, but it plants a seed for someone to improve upon. Often with these lists, an initial idea comes to light to address an issue. This idea is "not quite right" politically, it gets improved upon and built upon. In the process of improving the original idea, the original problem gets lost and the "Correct" way of doing something solves a totally different problem than what the original problem was. > Often, we mention things that are rong and neglect to focus on right > things so that we can capture them and ensure that they continue to > be part of the effort. See above -Steve
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2004 17:16:37 UTC