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

RE: Weighing in on priority definitions

From: James Allan <allan_jm@tsb1.tsbvi.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:12:25 -0500
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-id: <000601be91ab$0cf3ec20$0100007f@localhost>
I agree with Jutta's wording, with a nod to William's suggestion of removing
the 'with disabilities' context and focusing on universal design to
compensate for the "functional limitations" that we all deal with daily.

Jim Allan, Statewide Technical Support Specialist
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9453  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jutta Treviranus
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 1999 10:21 AM
> To: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus; w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Weighing in on priority definitions
>
>
> Rather than having two sets of priorities, the phrases relating to section
> 2 could be reworded to address the concerns expressed in last week's
> teleconference:
> Priority one presently reads:
> This checkpoint must be implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one or
> more groups of users with disabilities will find it impossible to access
> some function of the tool, or some content produced by it. Satisfying this
> checkpoint is a basic requirement for some individuals to be able to use
> the authoring tool or its output.
> This could be changed to:
> This checkpoint must be implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one or
> more groups of authors with disabilities will find it impossible to access
> some function of the tool, or authors will create web content using the
> tool that does not conform to the Web Content Guidelines. Satisfying this
> checkpoint is a basic requirement for some individuals to be able to use
> the authoring tool or its output.
>
> The gradation could be "does not", "unlikely to" and "may not."
> Thus we are not simply replicating the Web Content Guidelines which has
> already prescribed what content is completely inaccessible etc, but we
> would be using priority definitions that relate to what our guidelines are
> trying to do: create tools that persuade or compell authors to create
> accessible content. The gradation should reflect how well that task is
> accomplished.
>
> Bruce could you respond to the list before the conference call since we
> will be discussing this issue and would value your input.
>
> Jutta
>
> At 1:00 PM +0000 4/28/99, Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> >I won't be able to phone in for today's teleconference but wanted to give
> >my opinion on priority redefinitions.  I feel strongly that the
> definitions
> >should stay close to the way they are.  The current wording will make it
> >much easier for software developers to produce conforming tools
> and markup
> >because:
> >
> >1)  The wording is similar to the wording in other AI documents, in
> >particular User Agent and Web Content accessibility guidelines.
> This makes
> >it easier to gain a consistent sense in and across the development
> >community for what compliance means.  This also argues for
> keeping one set
> >of guidelines for all sections of the document.\
> >2)  The wording is tight enough that checking comformance is possible.  I
> >believe that alternatives proposed to this point make this checking more
> >difficult.
> >
> >
> >-- Bruce
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 1999 15:14:03 UTC

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