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

More Philosophy Stuff

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:52:09 -0700
Message-Id: <a0510030db78dd47ee17b@[10.0.1.5]>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
At 8:37 AM -0700 2001/8/01, Matt May wrote:
>MM Here's more of that philosophy stuff:
>First, the reason I'm bothered by this is that it's going to be tied to a
>compliance scheme, and when they are adopted as goals in organizations or
>governments, they become de facto rules, and we _are_ ordering these
>changes.
>
>And yet, I remain unconvinced that rules can or should be made of 3.3 and
>3.4 (though I should underscore that they should be there nonetheless).

That's why I am increasingly of the opinion that our "guidelines" need
to be less rules-oriented.  I don't think anyone denies that "use
graphics to illustrate textual content" is a good general principle
that _does_ increase accessibility to people.

I think the objections occur -- as with Matt's -- because we have to
-force- everything into a strict "checkpoint" structure.  And if
something can't be made into a checkpoint, we hide it somewhere (in
techniques) or we drop it entirely.

This is a dangerous approach because it means we are surpressing info
which could help make sites more accessible merely because it doesn't
fit our preconceived notion of what our guidelines "should" look
like.

I would prefer to see more "rule of thumb" guidelines, and possibly
ways to "parameterize" them so that someone who is using WCAG 2 as
the basis for a policy can make reasonable choices on what THEY will
require.

In other words, something like:

Rule of thumb:  "Use illustrations when it could benefit your audience's
comprehension."

   Requirement:  Set a policy for how illustrations must be used.

   Implications:  Without use of images, web users -- especially those
     with cognitive disabilities -- may find content inscrutable.

   Examples:  <examples>


This approach is based on the view that WCAG 2 shouldn't -set- a (de
facto) accessibility policy -- as WCAG 1 unfortunately did -- but
instead should be an _adjustable toolkit_ to allow site administrators
to intelligently set THEIR OWN accessibility standards.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
________________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
________________________________________
http://www.reef.com
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 12:00:26 GMT

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