W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > October to December 2003

Guideline 1 and ISO 16071 vs IBM

From: Kip Harris <hkip@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:56:18 -0600
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1B2A0516.91381C61-ON86256DF8.007B1BF1-86256DF8.00838081@us.ibm.com>





Appologies for the following newbie questions.  I need to better understand
some of the discussion we've had on the issue of ISO 16071 vs IBM for
Accessiblity Guidelines.

First I'd like to recap what I believe the history is on this, and then i
have a couple of questions.  Colleagues, please correct as needed.

My understanding is that we raised this issue in order to simplify the many
pointers to various guidelines which we now have, down to a single text.
The IBM software accessibility guidelines were initially proposed as the
starting draft.

A follow-on discussion then suggested that we reference the ISO 16071
technical specification, rather than incorporate the guidelines and
checklists from IBM.  The motiviations for this suggestion included:
1.)  Desire to keep w3 energies focused on problems in the domain of the
web, versus starting an activity which put us onto platform specific
activities.
2.)  Desire to reference an existing effort, versus potentially starting a
duplicate effort.
3.)  Using the ISO document as the starting point, versus IBM's docs,
perhaps provides for better independence, and consequently, greater
legitimacy.

That said, here are my questions.
4.)  Are we discussing this issue with respect to the Guideline success
criteria, or with respect to a rewrite of the current 1.1 Technique, or
both?
5.)  If the ISO document is available only for fee, is this still an
option?  (I have a note out to the ISO 16071 editor which will confirm
whether the fee is required).

Thanks team.  -Kip Harris.
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 18:56:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:48 UTC