W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: Definition of Accessible Content

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 14:14:53 -0500
Message-Id: <a05100312bc4d8a25355e@[142.150.64.191]>
To: <karen@mardahl.dk>, <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Since our guidelines are intended in part to guide developers in 
creating tools that result in the creation of WCAG compliant software 
I think it is very appropriate to use WCAG terms to define 
"accessible content." WCAG is undergoing many structural shifts but 
the terms you are using seem to have "sticking power." If WCAG 2.0 is 
not finalized in time perhaps we can define the terms within our 
document.

I think we probably need to state who it needs to be perceivable, 
operable and understandable to - ie. to more than the author.

Jutta


>  >From AUWG Teleconference Minutes (Feb 2, 2004)
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004JanMar/0051.html
>I had this "to do"
>
>ACESSIBLE CONTENT
>Action: KM, JR: to mull relationship between "Accessibility", "Accessible
>Content", "Accessibility Problem"
>
>This mail covers "Accessible Content"
>
>*  *  *  *
>I researched the WAI Glossary
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html
>the UAAG Glossary
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-UAAG10-20021217/
>WCAG 1.0
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
>WCAG 2.0
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
>
>WCAG 1 & 2 don't have these terms in a glossary per se. You need to read a
>lot to come to your own conclusion.
>I came up with
>
>ACCESSIBLE CONTENT:
>
>1) Content displayed by a user agent that is perceivable, operable, and
>understandable.
>
>1a) Content displayed by a user agent that is perceivable, operable, and
>understandable by all users.
>
>2) Content that is perceivable, operable, and understandable when displayed
>in a user agent.
>
>2a) Content that is perceivable, operable, and understandable by all users
>when displayed in a user agent.
>
>Version 2 allows for content perhaps not being perfectly accessible during
>the creation process, but being accessible when completed.
>I wasn't sure whether to include "all users". The WAI Glossary has a def. of
>accessibility that says "The art of ensuring that, to as large an extent as
>possible, facilities (such as, for example, Web access) are available to
>people whether or not they have impairments of one sort or another." "To as
>large extent" seems to allow that it may not be 100% perfect at all times.
>Thus, I didn't know if including "all users" became slightly restrictive in
>some cases, or if excluding it would be too vague. Comments??
>
>Perceivable, operable, and understandable have been stolen outright from
>WCAG 2.0. I like these words. I left out robust, because I just felt it
>could be left out here. Since 2.0 may be a longer time coming and 1.0
>doesn't have these terms, can that give problems of any kind? They are
>really nice words!
>
>Comments?! Jutta? Anyone else?
>
>regards, Karen Mardahl


-- 
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 14:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:07 UTC