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

RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:12:49 -0400 (EDT)
To: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>
cc: 'Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo ' <emmanuelle@teleline.es>, "''Anne Pemberton' '" <apembert@erols.com>, "''Jo Miller' '" <jo@bendingline.com>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org '" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108020904480.21474-100000@tux.w3.org>
Yes, in an implementation scenario, cost could be a problem, and if I was
being personally sued as a teacher by a student I would claim that I am
unable to do it and pass the problem back to the University.

But WCAG is not a document that assesses how much it costs for some person or
other to do the work, it describes what needs to be done to make content
accessible to people. Lawmakers and policy makers do things like assess what
the acceptable level of burden is. And since

1. those assessments are made very differently in Australia and the US, and

2. I think it is unacceptable to suggest that we use the US definition and

3. I suspect that the US isn't about to follow Australian Law and

4. This document becomes more or less useless in Australia as a reference if
it follows the US model and

5. The same thing multiplies by the rest of the countries and legal bodies
(states in Australia and the US, cantons in Switzerland, etc...)

I suggest that we stick to describing the technical requirements and leave
policy to policymakers.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Joel Sanda wrote:

  The adoption of 3.4 could easily be a burden for a lot of folks - which is
  the source of my concern regarding it.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 09:12:54 GMT

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