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

Re: Re-Organizing Guideline 2.7

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:43:32 -0400 (EDT)
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
cc: Authoring Tools WG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904212157200.16008-100000@tux.w3.org>
I am not convinced that we condone it. We say the following:

P1 items are basic requirements. If you don't do them, your tool cannot be
used by certain people, or your tool cannot be used to produce accessible web

Which is a polite and technical way of saying we think your tool should not
be allowed out on its own.

and furthermore, if you do fulfil p1 requirements, but not P2 requirements,
there are significant barriers to poeple using your tool, or using it to make
accessible content, or both.

Which is to say that it is possible to use your tool to make the world
better, but I wouldn't recommend it.

And if you fulfil P1 and P2 but not P3 then people will be able to use your
tool, but you could make life better.

Which is to say that this is a pretty acceptable level - when your 2-person
open-source startup gets a tool to meet this standard it deserves to be taken

And if you fulfil P3 then you actually have a good tool on your hands, which
we can heartily recommend to all and sundry as being superbly built to enable

This document is a technical activity, and we are obliged to look at the
world as it is. I would rather manufacturers fixed all the P1 problems than
fixed some of them and all the P2s. I would not personally be interested in
recommending a product that did not meet all P1 and P2 requirements except as
the best of a bad bunch, in which case a product which met all P1s would win
out over one which did not meet one or more of them, however many P2
requirements it met.

That's my 2 cents worth, if I can find someone who'll give me some pennies.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:

  aloha, charles!
[and a goodly bunch of sensible stuff I agree with, so have snipped, followed
  how can we condone, let alone give our stamp of approval to, a tool which
  shows how to construct a form or table _without_ including the
  accessibility features associated with such elements as part-and-parcel of
  what constitutes a form or a table?  if we leave the current 2.7.1 as-is,
  and the current 2.7.2 a p2, we doing just that...
  therefore, i simply cannot see how one could possibly justify according
  the current 2.7.1 priority 1 status, whilst according the current 2.7.2 a
  priority 2
                  Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
    Camera Obscura:           http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
    VICUG NYC:          http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html
    Read 'Em & Speak:   http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 11:43:36 UTC

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