Forwarded message 1
What does "until June 30th" in your email address imply?
My general comments on the IG charter:
One group I have not seen mentioned as a target/partner (and this is
true of W3C in general) is ISPs. As the internet "progresses" these
will be larger and therefor in a sense more reachable. They are
frequently the repository for Lynx and as we develop more tools they
could easily be an important place to provide filters and possibly proxy
servers. (sections 2, 2.1.1, and 8.2 could include them)
In 6.1 it might be appropriate to specifically include EO because they
have feedback from and feeling for the public impression being created
by our various tools' reports and repairs. They might help decide what
we do in part based on what they plan and learn.
I fear the times in section 9 are hopelessly optimistic in view of the
sluggish rate of activity on all the WAI lists. We get spurts of
interest usually about things that fall into the category of the
Liam/Len/Kathy7 thing about "content" which need (and I think got) a
firm chair ruling. Otherwise stuff pretty much floats. CAST had Bobby
widely publicized and used before there was a WAI and in order to
maintain our centrality as the referent for all things dealing with
access we must: keep our public pages up-to-the-minute; be aggressive
with authors, tool vendors, and particularly *STRONGLY* encourage the
W3C companies to espouse and embrace our efforts. Where is Sun? Are
there examples as cogent as ATT and IBM? Will MS make tools that are
Web-wide rather than just within their own stuff? If we produce all the
deliverables in the world, we must be able to see their effect on our
sponsors or its all in vain.
In 11.1 I would recommend that each member be required to personally
maintain a web page so that: we "live the life we sing about in our
song"; we have solidly grounded locales to test stuff out sort of
privately. When we propose something we can get a feel for how it is to
affect the target folks - could even have a "ring" for evaluators. This
could go into section 15 quite nicely.
I think 11.2 should be heavily emphasized (deadlines cause activity!) as
to the monthly report. EO has been woefully negligent in this regard -
the people giving time to this effort deserve inclusion in any progress
being made, some of which is happening outside the list.
Section 12 somehow minimizes the impact/reach of this group. I feel
that the tools, etc. we produce should be brought to the attention of
the W3C members quite possibly in a form similar to "recommendations" -
at least as a part of some overall WAI "thing" that becomes widespread.
If HTML and its attendant validators are that central, so should
anything we come up with.
The WG charter should parallel all this.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com