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

Re: Guideline 1 and ISO 16071 vs IBM

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:03:25 -0500
Message-Id: <a05100307bbff96b08eb2@[]>
To: Kip Harris <hkip@us.ibm.com>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org


Your understanding of the rationale is correct. Phil Jenkins 
suggested that we consider the ISO spec for the reasons you stated.

The reference will be in the Techniques document. If we have a single 
reference we will reword the checkpoint text. We will also make use 
of the reference in the success criteria.


At 5:56 PM -0600 12/10/03, Kip Harris wrote:
>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
>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
>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
>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 Friday, 12 December 2003 11:03:28 UTC

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