W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources)

From: Stuart Smith <Stuart.M.Smith@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 10:07:25 +0100
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20050608100725156.00000000860@marvin>


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Woolley
Sent: 07 June 2005 20:42
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clear communication: (was RE: Re: Accessibility of "CHM" format resources)

> I maybe a newbie to the group but I am very concerned about the
** growing reinterpretation of the Guidelines as Standards. There are lots
** of standards out there, which are very important and useful and the

One reason for this is that there are lot of organisations out there with lawyers insisting that they have to be Accessible, but where the staff want to be safe by the letter of the law whilst doing as little as possible.  They demand objective rules, compliance with which is testable, and which would not be subject to legal interpretation in court.  They, therefore try and interpret rules that can only really be interpreted subjectively, as though they were precise and sufficient.

Hi Dave

In total agreement with you there. Whilst understanable I think Accessibility is in danager of being presented as a set of technical milestones e.g. do this, this and this and you will be accessible to everyone under the sun! This I am sure most will agree is rubbish but is where we are heading, unless we all get a little more vocal. 

The sad thing is that it is real people who will suffer when sites proudly display their latest accessibilty logo but very few can actually use it effectively!

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 09:07:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:25 UTC