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

Re: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:22:27 -0700
Message-Id: <a05100306b7a6db03b7ca@[10.0.1.17]>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 4:30 AM -0700 2001/8/20, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>The only detriments I see are these:
>
>1. It takes longer to get the comprehensibility guidelines out.
>2. Without the "accessibility" angle, comprehensibility might lose some
>leverage. Solution: Define accessibility twice (as we already have, I
>think). GENERAL accessibility includes SPECIFIC accessibility, navigability,
>and comprehensibility.

There's still a danger of confusion (what do I follow? which is which?)
and it will create a sense that despite the intro/disclaimer, "these
things" are different from "these things".  Compliance might be hard
to track -- once separated out, it's easy to claim compliance to WCAG
but not to Comprehension especially if you can (incorrectly) justify
your site as being "exempt" (and a lot people DO feel that way, in
effect saying "I don't write for people who can't think right".)

Those are additional potential detriments.  This is not saying the idea
is a bad one.

--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 Monday, 20 August 2001 11:58:30 GMT

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