PAS 78 Launch event feedback
Home / Legal Issues & Web Standards / PAS 78 Launch event feedback
| SJB wrote: |
| Well the palantypists may have kept their text, although it would be less than perfect. I feel an enquiry coming on... |
the one that bruce and i chatted up?
_________________
Patrick H. Lauke / webmaster / University of Salford
co-lead: WaSP Accesibility Task Force
take it to the streets ... WaSP Street Team
personal: splintered | photographia | redux
co-author: Web Accessibility - Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance
Share: 
Even I don't think 30 quid is too much money in principle. Now, if what I get is loose-leaf sheets typeset in Arial, my later PAS-fisking may be a tad more energetic than already planned.
Share:
| joeclark wrote: |
| Even I don't think 30 quid is too much money in principle. Now, if what I get is loose-leaf sheets typeset in Arial, my later PAS-fisking may be a tad more energetic than already planned. |
Oops.
I think the cost is going to slow down the spread of information and that's not a good thing, but you also have to consider that the PAS is a well overdue document that needed to be paid for somehow. Don't all BSI documents carry a cost?
Here's some general information that seems to be overlooked by many at the moment:
The PAS 78 document contains information for organisations to begin to understand how they should go about finding a web developer, asking the right questions, performing user testing etc. General procurement information.
Organisations who want to cover their ass would be stupid not to invest £30 in this information. They generally spend many times more than that on management training etc.
What of the smaller organisations? Well they will also need to know how to procure a web development company but even then £30 is not going to represent a huge investment when considering the development cost of even a small website.
Developers need to have this information on their desks. It shows them what their clients will be looking for and helps them formulate a strategy for delivery and win new business.
In what context £30 is going to be a hugely prohibitive?
My biggest beef at the moment is the fact that they have apparently said that they don't have an accessible PDF version. Considering the purpose of the document and statements on the day of the launch from the DRC that they will expect pubic sector organisations to make all their PDFs accessible I think that's fairly inexcusable. I hope they put it right soon.
_________________
Grant Broome
Blog
CDSM
Shaw Trust
Share:
Good post on PAS 78 from top man Isofarro.
Share:
| Grant Broome wrote: |
| Don't all BSI documents carry a cost? |
Then why did this have to be a BSI document?
| Grant Broome wrote: |
| Organisations who want to cover their ass would be stupid not to invest £30 in this information. They generally spend many times more than that on management training etc. |
None of the many charities and voluntary groups I'm advising has ever spent a penny on "management training".
| Grant Broome wrote: |
| What of the smaller organisations? Well they will also need to know how to procure a web development company but even then £30 is not going to represent a huge investment when considering the development cost of even a small website. |
It will exceed the total web budget for some of the organisations I'm assisting.
| Grant Broome wrote: |
| In what context £30 is going to be a hugely prohibitive? |
Aside from my comments in this post, this has already been answered, in this thread.
_________________
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Birmingham, England
Share:
I think we've established that opinions are divided between those who think the £30 is reasonable, and those who find it unreasonable.
Nothing in the previous conversation suggests that proponents of either view are likely to persuade those who disagree to change their minds.
Therefore, how about we cease to argue about the cost on this board, and those who find the cost prohibitive take it up with the British Standards Institute, who are the people who impose the charge and therefore would seem to be the only people trying to persuade that it's unreasonable?
_________________
www.brucelawson.co.uk
Web Evanglist, Opera, WaSP Accesibility Task Force
Study the Web Standards Curriculum
International Lothario (retired)
Share:
| brucelawson wrote: |
| how about we cease to argue about the cost on this board, and those who find the cost prohibitive take it up with the British Standards Institute, who are the people who impose the charge and therefore would seem to be the only people trying to persuade that it's unreasonable? |
There does seem to be a keenness amongst some of those involved with, or supporting, this document, to stifle constructive criticism; and to make dishonest and abusive ad hominem attacks: http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/....
Besides, the commissioning agents are the DRC; the BSI appear to be acting as little more than a monopoly-holding retailer. I've already suggested that the DRC be invited to this forum.
_________________
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Birmingham, England
Share:
| Quote: |
| There does seem to be a keenness amongst some of those involved with, or supporting, this document, to stifle constructive criticism |
I spoke negatively about the distribution of PAS 78 but didn't feel stifled. I also agree with Bruce. Our comments have been passed to BSI and anyone who feels strongly can also contact both the BSI and DRC directly. Time for accessifyforum.com to move on.
All the best,
--
Ian
Share:
| ifenn wrote: |
| I spoke negatively about the distribution of PAS 78 but didn't feel stifled. |
I said that there is a "keenness to stifle"; I didn't say that it had been successfully applied.
_________________
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
Birmingham, England
Share:
I thought Bruce Lawson's summary of PAS very helpful. I have downloaded a copy. I'm a bit busy today - so it's bedtime reading 
Share:
| Quote: |
| I said that there is a "keenness to stifle"; I didn't say that it had been successfully applied. |
As I said, time for accessifyforum to move on...
All the best,
--
Ian
Share:
I've spoken with one of the contributors and he was unaware that it would end up behind a payment barrier. maybe he just assumed it would - as usual - be freely available but this grand strategy about simply addressing business obviously wasn't spelled out to him.
Is BSI paying the people who helped write the standard that helped boost their profits I wonder? they may receive the odd invoice ..
Yes, we need a BSI standard but why I'm especially pissed is that we are not allowed to distribute the text of what is a significant development in accessibility guidance. In particular, the thrust of that guidance. BSI have made it very clear that if anyone does they're breaking their copyright.
this is not about hardening current guidance into a standard which business' can aspire for, this is about a whole host of accessibility people producing new content which is then privatised and copyrighted by someone else.
To justify this on the grounds that a/ payment makes things more serious or b/ business people are the sole audience is frankly naive and desperate.
I am one of the many ordinary supportive people out there trying to get this issue raised off the ground - so, no, Bruce et al, not shutting up about this and I would urge everyone who agrees to contact the DRC and tell them to get this information out there to the people who need it in an open-source format.
How about them simply giving the BSI a lump sum and distributing the standard to people who request it?
How about RNIB buying a bunch for poor groups?
There is absolutely no lateral thinking about how to get this guidance out there - all I'm hearing is defensiveness.
can we think positively about how else can the guidance be repurposed and made widely available?
_________________
Paul Canning
Web Development Officer
Cambridge City Council
01223 457415
paul.canning@cambridge.gov.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~
Save energy, money and the environment - is it necessary to print this
message?
Share:
Maybe we should start a fund to get this forum a licence so that the regular valued members could view the document by request?_________________
};-) http://www.xhtmlcoder.com/
WVYFC chose the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as the main charity to fund raise for in 2006
Share:
| Robert Wellock wrote: |
| Maybe we should start a fund to get this forum a licence so that the regular valued members could view the document by request? |
Sounds like a good idea to me. I also think the mods should think about locking this thread as it seems to be going round in circles now.
_________________
Andy Saxton
Logoblog: Web Standards, Accessibility & Usability
Share:
| pcanning wrote: |
| I am one of the many ordinary supportive people out there trying to get this issue raised off the ground - so, no, Bruce et al, not shutting up about this and I would urge everyone who agrees to contact the DRC and tell them to get this information out there to the people who need it in an open-source format. |
I couldn't agree more. No-one on this forum has had anything bad to say about the specification itself, which makes it even more frustrating that there's a cost associated with spreading the word.
| pcanning wrote: |
| can we think positively about how else can the guidance be repurposed and made widely available? |
How about the BSI waive the cost until their site passes an independent accessibility assessment?
_________________
Dan Champion, Champion IS, Mooch Marketing, Revish
Share:
All times are GMT
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum