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

Subject=FW:%20CONSENSUS%20REVISED.%20%20%209-28-01&In-Reply-To= <001d01c14b01$607c64a0$066fa8c0@750>

From: Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 04:33:57 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <20011003033357.56857.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi
As the latest member of the group I would like to make
comment on the current consensus.
My purpose is to be clear on the areas of consensus
that I don't understand or are uncomfortable with...
There are 3.....

C5, C6 and G1

C5 and C6
<extract from consensus posting>
C5 - we WCAG should provide a way for people to see 
impact of items for
particular disabilities but it should not be used for
conformance.
(see requirement 5)

C6 - GL should provide hooks in WCAG to allow someone
to provide a way
for people to measure access against particular
disabilities but it
should not be used for conformance.     [ Who
should/would do the tool?
GL or EO or ?]   [Separate tool]
</extract from consensus posting>

If we provide an ability to discriminate for or
against particular 'disability groups' then I would be
very uncomfortable with this.
The term 'should not be used for conformance' is used
in both cases, presumably to guard against this
happening.
However, it does not appear to be much of a safeguard.
If we give people the ability to discriminate across
'diability groups' then they may well / probably will
use it.

Another thing that is 'lost' or potentially 'glossed
over' by this process is the complexity of disability.
I believe that it is wrong to assume that people can
simply be classed in terms of an impairment /
disability, such as blindness, it doesn't fit with my
knowledge of the world of disability.

Perhaps if someone could explain the rationale for
this functionality then it would make some sense to
me.


G1
As stated in my feedback on the latest draft of the
guidelines [1] I believe that the statement

"Our document should be written as clearly and simply
as is appropriate for the content..." is tautological.

I believe it is the *target audience* that determines
the appropriate language. 

so would prefer

"Our document should be written clearly and simply...

or

"Our document should be written as clearly and simply
as is appropriate for the target audience..."

Cheers
Graham Oliver

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001JulSep/0901.html



=====
'Making on-line information accessible'
Mobile Phone : +64 25 919 724 - New Zealand
Work Phone : +64 9 846 6995 - New Zealand
AIM ID : grahamolivernz

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 23:33:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT