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

Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 05:19:34 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 03:02 PM 1/7/01 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>Of course, it might be maintained that any division into guidelines and 
>checkpoints will inevitably be, to some extent, arbitrary.

Not only "might" but "will".

In 1.0 there were fourteen (count 'em 14!) guidelines. The "published" 
draft of 2.0 has six (in Jason's post this has become five). Wendy's 
last-floated balloon has three and some old geezer would like it to be two 
(Independence and Inclusion).

So does the number become dictated by the fields that need covering or is 
it numerology?

Argument for the two "Principles" (nee guidelines) approach:

Rubric ("A short commentary or explanation covering a broad subject" is the 
definition I've pounced upon herein) is where it's at. It's hard for us to 
(at first) think of users with their agents as "devices" but that word's 
omission is permissible. Independence and Inclusion seem to be contraries 
but as a duality they certainly pertain in our field - in fact they pervade 
all the discussions at some level.

In the U.S. Disability Rights Movement there is almost terminal tension 
between "I'd rather do it myself" and "I could use a bit of assistance". 
Same here. We (the "all" of us with limited abilities) want to have control 
over lots of facets of that which is to be accessed *but/and* some 
assistance with deeper level explanation/revelation/discoverability/+ to 
coincide with our capabilities.

That's my Sunday Sermon.

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2001 08:18:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:35 UTC