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

RE: the Ruler - Rule question

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:18:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: "'GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107301714010.8154-100000@tux.w3.org>
I would add D to requirements for documents. Something like the existing
conformance claim stuff that says you have to claim conformance in correct
form to have it, except more detailed statements about particular

I think it is necessary to do more than just document that people have been
excluded from a site to make it accessible, but even that is a valuable
improvement, and combined with removing other barriers can be really helpful.

The EARL work being done in the ERT group provides a neat technique for this.



On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

  Hi Anne

  I like D also,
  (and you certainly can change)
  but does it help us with our goal? -- which is to make pages more

  Would a page be considered accessible if it just documented its
  accessibility - or lack of it?     Isn't accessibility a measure of
  usability by people with disabilities, not just a measure of
  documentation of usability?

  Having said that -- I still see utility in D.   Having people document
  what they have done may be a very effective way of getting them to
  improve it.   It doesn’t meet our goal of defining what makes something
  accessible.  But it could help to make it more accessible.   Soooooooo.
  How do we deal with this.......
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 17:18:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC