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

Re: Weighing in on priority definitions

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 17:56:05 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus <Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>
cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9905031730030.22923-100000@tux.w3.org>
I suggest a small clarification to Jutta's wording. Instead of

"authors will create web content using the tool that does not conform to the
guidelines"

I suggest that we say

  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 using the tool will not be
  able to create web content that is accessible. Satisfying this checkpoint
  is a basic requirement for some individuals to be able to use the
  authoring tool or its output.

  This checkpoint should be implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one
  or more groups of authors with disabilities will face significant
  barriers to access some function of the tool, or authors using the tool
  will find it difficult to create web content that is accessible.
  Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers for some
  individuals to be able to use the authoring tool or its output.

  This checkpoint may be implemented by authoring tools, to make it easier
  for one or more groups of authors with disabilities to access some
  function of the tool, or authors using the tool will find it easier to
  create web content that is accessible. Satisfying this checkpoint will
  improve access for some individuals to the authoring tool or its output.

This removes a potential ambiguity about whether it is the tool or the
content produced which is accessible. It also talks about accessibility,
which is the functional requirement, rather than conformance to the WCAG,
which is the way to do it.

so that's my proposal...

Charles


On Mon, 3 May 1999, Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus wrote:

  
  Sorry I took so long to respond.  I jotted down the original e-mail just as
  I was leaving town and I've just got back to my e-mail.
  
  I like Jutta's wording.  I have no problem with leaving the phrase "users
  with disabilities" in.  In fact, I would argue it's necessary.  Otherwise
  one could say that if the tool can't be localized then, technically, it
  can't be accessed by some group of users which would fail priority one.
  And I don't think that's what we want P1 to mean, right?
  
  -- Bruce

  Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca> on 04/27/99 11:20:46 AM
  
  To:   Bruce Roberts/CAM/Lotus <Bruce_Roberts/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com>,
        w3c-wai-au@w3.org
  cc:
  
  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
  
  
  
  
  

--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 Monday, 3 May 1999 17:56:42 UTC

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