Re: "maybe even in the fact that you use words as all," (sic)

Philip,

it's true to say that yes I do mean exactly what you say.

It's not enough to engage developers in creating specifications.
end-users, that is ordinary people have different requirements, and  
people who are illiterate are a special case.

David Woolley has a great description of the W3C 'abuse of process'  
here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2008JulSep/0013.html

and I am pressing the case with Tim and Ian, in a thread here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jul/0036.html

Doug's attempt to suggest the suitability of other media is sadly  
strong evidence of his failure to understand and engage with the  
people or the issue.
for instance many people with a learning disability cannot use a phone  
independently, and may have a speech impediment.
Similarly the suggestion that WAI is meeting their needs is sadly  
confounded by the formal objection to WCAG2 and the very slow progress  
in this area.

just an example of one users complex work pattern:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/computer.html
not someone with learning disabilities, but...

regards


Jonathan Chetwynd

j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.openicon.org/

+44 (0) 20 7978 1764


http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Note that even content that conforms at the highest level (AAA) will  
not be accessible to individuals with all types, degrees, or  
combinations of disability, particularly in the cognitive language and  
learning areas.

On 20 Jul 2008, at 10:03, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote:

>
>
> Doug Schepers wrote:
>
>> W3C has activities for accessibility (several WAI groups), video,  
>> voice browsers, e-government (including education and community  
>> outreach)... all of these things address your concerns.  So, your  
>> claim doesn't seem to match the facts.
>
> I think (and forgive me if I am wrong) that what Jonathan means
> by "engage with"[1] is to actually talk to, and work with, such
> people, to ascertain at first hand how best they can be  
> "empowered"[2].
> Am I correct, Jonathan ?
>
> Philip TAYLOR
> --------
> [1], [2] : Yet more modern management-speak.  Sadly these
> words, and their friends, are now so commonplace that it
> is becoming increasingly difficult, when tempted to use
> them, to :
>
>> Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
>> Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
>> Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
>> Prefer the short word to the long.
>> Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.
>
> as H W Fowler so wisely recommended in /The King's English/.