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

RE: Granularity of conformance claims

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 1999 11:21:31 -0700
Message-Id: <4.1.19990725111930.02b81220@mail.idyllmtn.com>
To: "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
Cc: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>, Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 07:09 AM 7/22/1999 , 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!

I disagree entirely; I think we need to be more concerned with the
checkpoint priorities and remember they are based on "must", "should"
and "may", and not focus so highly on single-A/double-AA/triple-AAA!

I think WCAG _should_ be a Chinese menu (anyone need that idiom
explained?) because that's how it's written and that's apparently the
intent of the document!  To use it otherwise -- to decree that the
priority levels constitute a sensible implementation plan -- is

Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Sunday, 25 July 1999 14:22:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:30 UTC