- From: <Svgdeveloper@aol.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:17:18 EDT
- To: kynn@idyllmtn.com, www-style@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org, tbray@textuality.com
- Message-ID: <1ad.719f56f.2a93efbe@aol.com>
In a message dated 20/08/2002 18:56:30 GMT Daylight Time, kynn@idyllmtn.com writes: > At 3:52 AM -0400 8/20/02, Svgdeveloper@aol.com wrote: > >2. The Web Accessibility Initiative, as currently formulated, may be > >potentially harmful to the future development of the Web > > I don't see this at all. Rather, the Web Accessibility Initiative is > having to deal with very real problems and is attempting to come to a > solution for those. Hi Kynn, I won't respond just now to each of your points in detail. However, I would like to say that you raise several issues which correpond to some of my background concerns. I was saying "You don't seem to be (nearly) there guys" and you are saying "We are working on it". ... So that sounds promising. :) So we can agree, I think, that WAI is at a relatively early stage of development and there are significant technical issues to be addressed? [Disclaimer: The comments which follow are based on a part reading of relevant WAI documents. I did say I saw a potential issue and would, in the ordinary course of events, if Tim hadn't tried to censor further discussion on the TAG list, have teased these issues out step by step after further research on my part. They are also pretty direct, not in order to provoke, but to put on the table the street cred (or lack of it) of WAI.] One substantive problem that I see with existing WAI documents is that they read as if each and every guideline/point was of 100% importance and that there is no prioritisation. That seems to me be an inherently unrealistic position to take, even if it is only taken implicitly. When people are losing their jobs by the thousands you need, in my opinion, to prioritise if you want to be taken seriously. To implicitly claim that *all* WAI is of absolute importance generates a feeling that the mindset isn't realistic. To be taken more seriously I think that WAI have to give consideration to prioritising suggested approaches. To do that I think WAI needs to examine the technical issues and develop a better understanding of what is possible in the short term and what is possible strategically. I think WAI needs a better developed conceptual framework for what it is doing. That is one reason I raised the "What is Semantics" thread. I think we need to tease out which aspects of "semantics" we are trying to capture and then convey to all users. If we understand the aspects of "semantics" better we can have more informed, and hopefully less confrontational discussions. I don't know why I get myself into the position of expressing what people don't want to hear but it seems I do .... The street cred of WAI is low because it comes across as absolutist and missionary. The comment by Tim that it is "immoral" not to take heed to WAI is an example of how WAI comes across. Credibility on the street for comments like that is zero. They also generate a lot of hostility in people who thereafter simply will refuse to listen. So, in my view at least, there is significant existing damage to be repaired. Secondly, WAI comes across to some extent as fossilized in an HTML mindset. I appreciate that there is an August 2001 set of XML guidelines in draft. Nothing since publicly available. Still with me I hope. :) I am saying these things directly to emphasise the importance of improving WAI, in part by giving it a much more explicit and well-thought-through conceptual underpinning. That is one reason why I raised the "What is Semantics" thread as a formal issue for TAG to consider. If we can sensibly and intelligently consider the various aspects of semantics that various parts of existing and emerging technologies provide (or fail to provide) then we can then more sensibly identify which can effectively be harnessed - for example in WAI. I hope that helps you understand a little more about where I am coming from. I am not antagonistic to a well-thought WAI. I want to see it improve. If we develop a better understanding of semantics we are all better equipped going forward, in my view. Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 15:18:06 UTC