W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2016

RE: Technical baseline clause revisited?

From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:30:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Cohn, Jonathan" <jcohn@air.org>
cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1609091529390.30967@server2.shellworld.net>
My apologies,  Consider the thread to be closed, at least by me.  My 
questions  relating to web accessibility and my pending human rights 
complaint are answered.
Karen


On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Cohn, Jonathan wrote:

> I can see no way this discussion especially in such vague terms will resolve any web accessibility issues.
>
> I did not join the WAI list to learn about Canadian politics and social programs (whatever that term might mean).
>
> Jonathan Cohn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen [mailto:klewellen@shellworld.net]
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 2:26 PM
> To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> Cc: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>; Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Technical baseline clause revisited?
>
> No disrespect to David here,  but I am not following what participation  has to  do with social programs?
> Further if the legal umbrella here, the AODA  has no complaint component, how would an individual share that the structure does not provide participation?
> Technology has changed much in 9 years.  Further how one seeks impacted individuals i dare say  would impact who you did or did not hear from at the time.
> The suggestion that a body difference experience automatically translates to a social program component is...disturbing in the 21st century in my view.
> Karen
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> WCAG is a consensus document arrived at over 9 years, by diverse
>> stakeholders including the disability community and industry ... at
>> it's minimum, it requires one technology stack, including
>> accessibility supported  affordable AT, taking into consideration
>> various social programs such as the ADP program in Ontario to support
>> the purchase of AT. In other words web sites don't have to work with
>> free AT, just one set of affordable AT at the minimum.
>>
>> I sat in on all those sometimes painful discussions over those years,
>> but we have a standard that did not receive one formal objection from
>> any stakeholder, which is a minor miracle given the subject matter.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy
>> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Karen Lewellen
>> <klewellen@shellworld.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again Alan and all,
>>> One more important point here.
>>> Whose real-world?  the real world is how you define it...just ask trump.
>>> Seriously, suspending the assumption that you know anything about any
>>> other person's world but your own must be the first line of
>>> compliance or so I feel.  Otherwise the knee jerk tendency to assume
>>> first and ask never kicks in.
>>> Speaking only for myself, I feel such is especially true if you
>>> experience a challenge yourself..a shared label does not a shared experience make.
>>> here in Ontario one critical part of how the law is applied requires
>>> a company to position themselves regarding an accommodation
>>> request..in plain English that means you ask what is needed and why.
>>> From a section 508 standpoint, I dare say that means you say what
>>> must be present for the door to open at the basic level?
>>> Because  so many of you here are  in the policy business the
>>> individual human might not factor into your daily calendar.  Never
>>> forget that you are facilitating participation, not meeting guidelines, if that resonates.
>>>
>>> just my two cents,
>>> Kare
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>>>
>>> Karen,
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate your insight into all of this.
>>>>
>>>> I’m challenged in supporting a client who must be accessible from a
>>>> regulatory standpoint.
>>>>
>>>> In the real-world user find things don’t always match up with
>>>> regulatory compliance guidelines.
>>>>
>>>> Best.
>>>>
>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
>>>>
>>>> From: Karen Lewellen
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 19:31:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 September 2016 19:31:17 UTC