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

RE: Granularity of conformance claims

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 11:55:23 -0400
Message-ID: <01BED439.21D9D160.bbailey@clark.net>
To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Anne --

I would be glad to share the site, but I can't (don't have permission / 
don't have the technical ability) since it is currently on a private 
intranet.

The site does precious little for the truly cognitively impaired.  The site 
is pretty, but that is really for everybody (especially the non-technical 
bureaucrats that are funding the project).  All parts of Checkpoint 14 are 
addressed nicely, but the site remain totally inaccessible to a non-reader.

Really what the author is trying to do is to twist the WCAG against itself 
by playing one disability group (the learning impaired) against another 
(the blind) [sigh] -- all without really doing anything in particular for 
the first group! [heavier sigh]

-- Bruce


On Thursday, July 22, 1999 10:32 AM, Anne Pemberton 
[SMTP:apembert@crosslink.net] wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> 	I am still struggling at preparing a list of accommodations for the
> learning and cognitively disabled population. Not many people have been
> looking for accessibility for those groups specifically. Since this 
person
> says that's his purpose, I would like to see what he/she has done towards
> that end. Please post the URL for the site, or if you prefer, send it to 
me
> private e-mail.
>
> 		Thanks,
>
> 			Anne
> 	
> At 10:09 AM 7/22/1999 -0400, Bruce Bailey wrote:
>> Allow me to quote from an email sent by contractor defending his work 
after
>> I critiqued his horribly inaccessible site.  Mind you, this vendor
>> understands that accessibility is an issue.  My main point in posting 
this
>> here is to provide hearsay evidence that vendors will try and use WCAG 
as a
>> "Chinese menu" -- picking and choosing among what they want.  And this 
is
>> with the current WCAG.  Charles' observations are quite on the mark.  We 
>> don't dare weaken the A/AA/AAA levels!
>>
>> The names will remain anonymous to protect the guilty...
>>
>>> There is nothing in these guidelines which prevent having an alternate
>>> site.  In fact, it is encouraged.  The W3C/WAI Web Content 
Accessibility
>>> Guidelines themselves explicitly tell developers to create an alternate
>>> page when the current page doesn't "transform" well.  As it stands,
>>> our site meets a large number of the priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints
>>> outlined in the guidelines.  Also, the graphics version is needed to
>>> satisfy the requirements regarding people with learning disabilities to
>>> help them associate ideas.  The text only version designed for blind
>>> users might violate their rights.
>>
>> I have written back saying that "required as a last resort" is more
>> accurate than "encouraged" and that it does not matter how many Priority 
2
>> and 3 checkpoints are addressed if even ONE Priority 1 checkpoint is
>> missed, the site will remain inaccessible.
>>
>> Actually I went on in detail about a number of points.  This particular
>> work in progress is in real trouble because the vendor is generating the 
>> "text-only parallel version" (yes, I have emphasized that this approach 
is
>> misguided) from a Java applet!  My main goal has been getting them to
>> understand that EVERYTHING they do with Java, by definition -- and
>> including the text-only pages, is not accessible!  [heavy sigh...]
>
> Anne L. Pemberton
> http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert
> apembert@crosslink.net
> Enabling Support Foundation
> http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 22 July 1999 11:54:43 GMT

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