On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 10:02:47 +0200, M.Cooper <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I agree there is a lot of careful
> wordsmithing to be done but my view that this would be best done under a
> proposed element name of <accessibility> remains.
Hmm. There is a benefit to using "accessibility" as the name, since it
makes it easy to do the publicity work, and people know what it means. On
the other hand, a lot of what accessibility is interested in are things
that other groups are also interested in. For example, the adaptability
side, while relevant to accessibility, is equally relevant to browser
makers who are trying to put things on mobile phones, or on large screens
in shopping centres. Likewise conformance information in general already
fits into DC and has for years, so reinventing it seems to me like a bad
idea.
So on balance, I think it is actually worthwhile have a working group who
are clearly and explicitly interested in accessibility (I don't care what
word goes into the title, so long as the relevant information is in the
short description. Accessibility is a clear name but that it also brings
up what I can only describe as irrational resistance and strange unfounded
prejudices on behalf of people who are actually interested in the ideas
but have had a bad experience of working with accessibility-oriented
communities at some point :-(
Cheers
Chaals
(Sidar / Opera - and with both hats I will be at the meetings in Madrid)
--
Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
[log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
|