- 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