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

RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

From: Joel Sanda <joels@ecollege.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:53:02 -0600
Message-ID: <2FECE9363D811B418C3F282834F172A56DBE2C@sundance>
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
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>

If that's the case (and I'm not trying to sound cynical here) why don't we
also recommend all governments buy everyone a computer, teach Esperanto so
we can all write in one language, and recommend strategies to do away with
resource issues?

I like the WCAG because they are that: guidelines. And while the WCAG 1.0
was difficult to implement, in some cases due to limited User Agent support
(Netscape 4.x), it was achievable. Any web developer and content author
could sit down with the checklist and ensure many more people had access to
the site than previously did.

Perhaps the outstanding issues with 3.4 many of us currently have would be
better understood if we operate with clear definitions of the word feasible,
from the Group's charter. I don't think it's feasible to have 3.4, with its
current wording, if the WAI is also going to provide icons to demonstrate

Or, and this may in fact be the case, is the adoption or non-adoption of the
WCAG 2.0 a non-issue?

Phew ... any good discussion always involves questioning assumptions, but
3.4 is certainly exercising mine a lot lately! <grin />


On Thursday, August 02, 2001 Charles wrote:
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
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.


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 14:53:03 UTC

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