W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Accessibility vs. consideration X: how to handle

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:28:13 -0500 (EST)
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101030926460.25987-100000@tux.w3.org>
Hmm,

the language "must" "should" "may" in WCAG is an editiorial convention, which
was adopted as a practical reflection of the priority of a requirement.
Conformance is based on meeting checkpoints at priority levels that are
defined in terms of how important the barrier that they address is.

Chaals

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:

  Basically, yes, those are the requirements this particular straw proposal
  addresses.

  Might want to change the words "preserve compatibility"  though.  That's
  because there's a subtle difference between the single, double, triple A in
  the scheme I proposed, and WCAG 1.0,  in that they are based on difficulty
  of access rather than "must" "should" "may".  I don't know if the words
  "preserve compatibility" gives enough wiggle room for that shift.    Also
  "preserve compatibilty" doesn't parse because wcag 1 introduced
  conformance; it wasn't compaible with anything earlier; so there isn't
  anything to "preserve"  (you can only preserve what already exists).

  How about "maximize compatibility"?

  If the above is opaque, then the difference probably isn't worth discussing
  for this level of requirements.

  Len

  At 10:49 PM 1/2/01 -0800, you wrote:
  >At 3:25 PM -0500 1/2/01, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
  >>Len again:
  >>How about the following:
  >
  >That's a possible implementation, and that's fine.  At the moment I'm
  >gathering -requirements- for conformance schemes; how would you
  >characterize (or reverse-engineer) the requirements expressed by
  >the proposal you gave?
  >
  >Would you say that they are adequately summarized by the following:
  >
  >* Preserve compatibility with the WCAG 1.0 conformance scheme.
  >
  >* Expand the range of conformance claims beyond merely those
  >   within the WCAG 1.0 conformance scheme.
  >
  >* Allow reporting bodies flexibility in determining which parts of
  >   WCAG 2.0 to report compliance with.
  >
  >--Kynn
  >--
  >Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
  >http://www.kynn.com/

  --
  Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
  Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple
  University
  (215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
  http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

  Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

  The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
  http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 09:28:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT