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

Re: Proposal: sufficiency criteria for WCAG 2.0

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 06:54:08 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010704063203.034fcbd0@mail.gorge.net>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
At 09:38 AM 7/4/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>the criteria should not be regarded as "minimum conformance requirements" 
>but rather as specifying in greater detail what was needed to satisfy a 
>checkpoint

In other words the "criteria", "satisfying", "detail", etc. all are other 
words for saying "in other words" in other words.

For some guideline/checkpoint users a very terse (even a single word such 
as "repurposable") expression will suffice. The array of possible 
expansions (verbal/graphic/sonic/tactile) is large and the decision about 
when/where to stop including yet another exemplification/clarification is 
the "why" of our existence.

We pretty much got the idea about five years ago. Not much has changed 
there. We "bottled it" with reasonable success (there are now enforceable 
laws/regulations/policies based on WCAG) a while back, now we are 
"purifying" the contents and fooling with the shape/color of the container. 
Now that the "accessibility industry" has been viably spawned we can 
prettify the message and call it WCAG 2.0?

It has been really wonderful working with all of us on these details. In 
recognition of the natural process of ageing and the demands I feel from 
other related activities, this is my final post hereto. Thank you all for 
putting up with my dotage.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2001 09:53:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT