W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Checkpoint 3.3

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:26:47 +1000 (AEST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.990713181504.22287D-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
Unfortunately, Robert's response adds no substance to his arguments, and
nor does it address any of the objections which I raised against his
position. He also fails to separate the question of government policy from
the issue of what the guidelines do and should require. I don't agree that
the non-implementation of CSS is so severe as to preclude its widespread
deployment; nor do I consider the implementation difficulties to be unduly
onorous. Moreover, the issue of what to implement, and how quickly, is not
addressed by the guidelines and is a question of government and
organisational policy. The guidelines simply orient their r priority
levels based on impact (the definitions of the three priority levels as
stated in the document), and provide three conformance levels as
convenient labels by which to claim compliance with different sets of
priorities. It is for organisations, and governments, to decide, based on
the guidelines and any other pertinent information, what should be
implemented, on which web sites, and how quickly, in order to satisfy
legal tests of non-discrimination and progressively to ensure that all web
sites are equally accessible irrespective of disability. It is not the
task of the guidelines to make such decisions, but only to provide the
best available technical advice, based on the criteria set forth within
the document itself, of what is required in order to ensure genuine
accessibility, and the severity of non-compliance with particular
requirements.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 1999 04:26:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT