- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:44:48 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF01CC3524.07AE2D67-ON8625720D.001D898C-8625720D.0024FD69@us.ibm.com>
John said: > Contributors to this specific thread have included long-time members I absolutely agree! > participants noted above are certainly of the "mature" caliber, and to > suggest otherwise is unfair and borders on insulting. I was talking about the list, as an abstract whole, not individuals. If I insulted you or anyone else, please accept my apologies. For the record, no one else commented to me. >> Why do you think this list could reach >> consensus on example good sites? > We may not know how to describe them, but we can tell when we've seen them. > Why do think list members cannot? Cannot what? - describe them?, or tell when we've seen them?, or my original question - the list reach consensus on example sites? Who is "we" in "we may not know how ..? the list or some group your are speaking for? You have made several points that help explain the answer to your own question. I do not think this list can agree on example sites because, quoting from you: 1. the "community" is having an even harder time agreeing with some of the consensuses [that the working group] reached. 2. there were at times conflicting agendas at the table. 3. sometimes there is conflicting "best practices" - what may improve access for one group will disadvantage another. 4. participants in this thread have stressed the need for subjective analysis, > None of this however should discredit the opinions offered to Anna > as she seeks to arm herself for the task at hand. I wasn't judging or even discrediting any ones opinions. But I am pointing out several things - my opinion is: 1. that they [posts] are opinions, opinion of individuals who post to the list 2. that this list doesn't follow any process like the working group follows 3. that there are conflicting opinions I offered my opinion [off list] to Anna and copied you, that I recommended implementing to WCAG 2.0. The reasons I gave was that the working group needs and asked for implementation experience. In my opinion, I can best arm Anna, and other readers, for the task at hand by not giving her any of my "subjective analysis or "conflicting best practices". I recommended to Anna to use the techniques document as a "source" for "good example sites". > There are however many good examples of sites that are trying hard > to do it right, that are succeeding at many levels, and are emerging > as exemplars to both applaud and emulate. I thinks so too. But all the individuals on this list don't have the same list of examples, some on the list may not even have a list, and by nature of this being an interest list, no one even has to respond either way. And again, instead of sending Anna my list, I pointed her to the techniques document, to what I thought had more value than my opinion. You or any one else on this list can agree or disagree with my recommendations - that's the beauty of interests lists. Regards, Phill Jenkins IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 06:45:01 UTC