W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 2003

Rec/Standard/Infomercial?

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:55:18 -0700
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030815074812.0280bd90@pop3.gorge.net>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

The main problem I'm having with WCAG 2.0 is that if there's any need for 
Yet Another Document why shouldn't the WG decide whether they want 
something to be more like an ISO standard? If not, why not? IMO there needs 
to be such a document and I don't believe it will include much directly 
relating to its "whyness".

If this is not to fulfill that function, then what's the point? We already 
have the widely disseminated WCAG 1.0 and most of the effort is towards 
mapping the new one to it, to limited success. The change in the 
"conformance model" has largely been in response to dissatisfaction with 
some users with the P1/P2/P3 model and whichever rating system is decided 
on will produce similar dissatisfactions with somebody.

Whatever was "broke" about 1.0 should be "fixed" by creating an ISO type 
document that will be largely gobbledygook for most readers, but will form 
a basis for actually making accessible documents for the Web. It won't need 
any more "justification" than already exists in the EOWG resources.


--
Love.

It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious! 
Received on Friday, 15 August 2003 15:11:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:36 GMT