- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 10:24:49 -0700
- To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:04 AM 10/5/2001 , Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >THE FOLLOWING ARE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED ON 1.0 CONFORMANCE >SCHEME (notes from our last teleconf call) > >1. No credit for partial between levels >2. Checkpoint by Checkpoint credit has been discussed. >3. 1.0 relies on priority discussion and since for cognitive all >guidelines are P1 for someone -- they would all be P1. >4. Difference between Conformance and Reporting >· What has been done versus what Needs to be done Tends to create a de facto implementation plan which may not in fact be the optimal plan for all web sites out there. Far too easily leads to a situation in which lawmakers or policy setters discard everything with too low of a priority level; under WCAG 1.0 I can think of no one who requires any P3 checkpoints even those which are GOOD and SENSIBLE and EASY DO, thus making P3 checkpoints effectively worthless. Philosophical statement: A conformance scheme should be a meta-conformance scheme that allows policy makers to describe their policy in WCAG 2.0 (and gives guidance to minimum policy requirements), instead of serving as a policy itself. WCAG 2.0 conformance should not look like policy, but should look like a toolkit for building policy. This philosophy is in line with the goals and aims of WCAG working group charter, as we are not "writing laws" but we are writing primary material to be used by policy setters (as well as providing technical documentation for developers). Comments? --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com> Technical Developer Liaison Reef North America Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network ________________________________________ BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL. ________________________________________ http://www.reef.com
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 13:26:19 UTC