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

Re: AAA Conformance of WCAG 1.0?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908241121590.5830-100000@tux.w3.org>
Some concrete things we could do:

provide photos of people using braille devices.
Provide audio samples, accessible smil examples, etc.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

  I think there is truth in the suggestion that an all-text document may not be
  completely accessible, if comprehension can be facilitated with non-textual
  illustration. Some concrete examples are the proposed SMIL accessibility
  note, which coul really use some flowchart diagrams. I am personally loath to
  claim anything as triple-A compliant unless I am very sure that it is clearly
  written, appropriately illustrated, and everything else has been exhaustively
  checked.
  
  This is the effect of 14.2 on me. Whether the "out" offered is easy or not
  depends on the context - this is about as it should be, in my humble opinion.
  
  Charles McCN
  
  On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, William Loughborough wrote:
  
     14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory 
            presentations where they will facilitate
            comprehension of the page. [Priority 3] 
    
    IJ:: "This seems to mean that an all-text document...cannot conform at
    Level Triple-A."
    
    The decision as to what qualifies as "where they will facilitate" is an
    easy exit for this since so many on this list and IG have made it clear
    that in their humble opinions the addition of graphic or auditory
    presentations not only will not facilitate, but in fact inhibit
    comprehension.
    
    No matter how deplorable it may be that non-readers are shut out of
    access to text, until something more than "wouldn't it be nice if..."
    shows up, things like 14.2 can have no effect: i.e. *what* graphics,
    etc. will actually be useful? The problem of pinning down what colors
    are "effective" is a trivial problem compared to which illustrations are
    in fact illustrative and the color debate rages on.
    
    Triple-A in this case is in the mind of the author since the trial judge
    would be hard put to argue that the GL home page would demonstrably
    improve with the addition of illustrations in the face of opposing views
    claiming that they interfere with usability.
    -- 
    Love.
                ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
    http://dicomp.pair.com
    
  
  --Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
  phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
  W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 1999 11:26:53 GMT

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