W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

imminent last call

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:51:33 -0700
Message-ID: <371F2965.9B89BDD5@gorge.net>
To: au <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Judy says the 4/21 document is: up for review by the ig; is the "last
call" version.

We have a problem.

Since there are only 11 guidelines (now there's tersity in action!) and
30 CheckPoints the problem isn't too severe.  There's probably 30
checkpoints when one starts to drive an automobile.

The definitions for priorities for one document (or even separate
definitions for two sections of the doc) is quite significant since the
priorities in the WCAG are not apparently suitable for our purpose.

There is some contention that the "fully sutomatic" types of authoring
methods (AU for dummies?) imply that the tool be able to generate *only*
accessible files but that some of its usual function (stripping
elements, e.g.) have "parental guidance" from the author, in case she
isn't "clueless" or "naive" or even "non-technical".

THE 2.5 CHALLENGE

2.5.1 seems to make a priority one item of precluding removal of what
*might* be lower priority material.  If the material removed renders the
document inaccessible then there is no need for this item (particularly
as a P1) since the tool will fail according to other guidelines affected
by the removal of something needed to qualify even for an "A"
conformance.  If it said "never remove markup that renders the document
inaccessible" then it's a "Duh!"

2.5.2 seems fine since this leaves room for the "well clued" author to
override any markup removal known by her to promote accessibility.  Is
this P1?  If faced with irrevocably removed markup will the author be
just pissed or shackled?

2.7 MODIFICATIONS

If 2.7.2 said "Integrate accessible authoring practices in all
applicable help AND DOCUMENTATION topics." then 2.7.1 would be
unnecessary since 2.7.2 would by implication "explain the use of
accessible authoring practices" - and with a little creative
wordsmithing (are you listening, Ian?) 2.7.4 could also be included in
2.7.2 if the "integration" included mentions of universal design
principles.

SECTION 3

Most of the Priorities (all?) should be P1s, IMHO.

3.4.2 the parenthetical "(e.g., as a structured tree file)" should be a
technique and this checkpoint MIGHT be a lower priority.  If the tool
permits a tree then it, like any feature, MUST be accessible.

PRIORITIES

If the generated file causes posting of inaccessible Web material then
it is a P1 failure; i.e., whatever checkpoint abrogation caused the
problem is a P1 checkpoint whether it was generated by a conversion tool
or whatever.

Here "inaccessible" means that the resulting Web page cannot be used
(P1), is unbearably tedious to use (P2), or is inconvenient to use (P3)
by a PWD.  If Section 3 has different definitions of priority it merely
substitutes "the tool" for "the resulting Web page" in that last
sentence.

-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 09:50:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC