W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2000

Re: A proposal for changing the guidelines

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:14:54 -0500 (EST)
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
cc: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>, Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003152011040.6999-100000@tux.w3.org>
A couple of extra points. 

The text-only version is not, in general, an accessible version - it is
another of the 9 variants that might be useful for some purposes. Which is
why WCAG says "an accessible alternative version", not a "text-only version".

Having ten versions introduces a potential level of complexity to navigating
a site (as a user) that could in itself provide a barrier to use.

Charles McCN

On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Jon Gunderson wrote:
  
  > or
  > 2. Does the information on a website need to be available in at least one
  > accessible form?
  
  Independent of the question of "need", according to the WCAG 1.0, all
  information must be accessible. You can have 10 forms of the information
  that offer the *equivalent* functionality, and 9 of them can be
  inaccessible, 
  as long as the 10th one is accessible (as you point out below).
   
  > Option 1 seems to be the current thinking of WAI in general (at least in my
  > mind)
  > Option 2 is acknowledged in Web Content with the provision of the text only
  > page option for complex pages and in User Agent in the documentation
  > section that says as least one version of the documentation must be accessible.
  > 
  > Do you think this is the central issue being raised by Scott?
  > 
  > Jon
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 20:15:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT