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

Against WCAG 1.0 style priorities->conformance

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 06:09:12 -0700
Message-Id: <a0510030cb7ac015bf129@[]>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On IG, I wrote:
>It's interesting to note the distribution here -- it implies that if
>you choose only "single-A" accessibility, you are primarily meeting
>needs of blind users, while "double-A" provides a broader range, and
>"triple-A" an even wider cross-section especially among people with
>limited input ability and cognitive impairments.
>Why is this?  (As a diversion:  It's NOT because people on the working
>group are biased.)  Most likely it is because blindness issues are,
>for lack of a better term, more "black and white".  They are either "do
>or do not, there is no try."
>On the other hand, the types of considerations you need to make for
>different audiences tend to be more vague, and really -are- of the sort
>"try to do this" or "do as much as you can" or "make it better by doing
>some of this."
>Because of the way the WCAG 1.0 priority system is structured, this
>promotes the needs of users who fit a "do or do not" scheme over the
>needs of those users who fit a "try" scheme.  This explains in part why
>some disability types seem to be "more important" in WCAG 1.0.

Please consider this argument added to my other objections to WCAG 1.0's
conformance system based entirely on priorities.  I like the other
proposals recently raised (e.g. Jason's, Paul's) better than I like the
idea of adopting WCAG 1.0's priorities/compliance for WCAG 2.0.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Received on Friday, 24 August 2001 09:18:15 UTC

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