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

RE: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 16:22:00 -0500
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001501c14f76$19ebbee0$066fa8c0@750>
Hi Charles.

1) Glad you agree with G-4.  It is an exact quote from your email on the
topic. (grin)

2) Regarding  G-3
Can you give examples of something that fits what you describe.   I
can't figure out exactly what you have in mind.

Here is an example of what the group was thinking.
- A person posts a picture of the Mona Lisa to show what great art looks
like and as an example of art by that artist.    There is no way that he
can make the Mona Lisa accessible to users without sight.   But he can
provide alt text so that the person knows what picture is displayed,
and he could provide a bit of text to explain what he thinks the sighted
person should note from the picture.

- now if this is a test -- then all he would provide was the name of the
picture.... not what the answer to the question is.

Are you saying that for specific things like 'tests' we should have an
exception which is clearly laid out and delineated in the guidelines?
Or that we should have an general exception where the author decides
when they should be excepted?  Or something else?


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 11:42 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)
Subject: Re: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts

I agree with G-4 (user vs user)

I disagree with the proposed G-3

The proposed G-3 is stating that we agree that the existing WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 11.4 is about right.

If the Author is trying to do something where the functionality cannot
every checkpoint, then they are not going to be able to conform to a set
requirements that is about universal accesssibility, unless we allow for
to declare that a requirement is not applicable givne the functionality
are trying to provide. We would have to be very clear about how to
what kind of functionalities it is resonable to suggest are necessary
some application even if they are not going to be accessible, and what
of funcitonalities can be provided in a different, accessible form.

If the functionality genuinely can't be provided in accessible form then
there is probable not much point having "almost the same thing" and
that is an accessible version.

However, we should strongly encourage authors in this situation to
conform to
all the checkpoints they can, in order to ensure the widest possible
range of

This is really just an extension of what we have already agreed about
how to
deal with the fact that we may be unable to provide guidelines that
accessibility for all authors.



  G-3.	Where Author and User needs conflict such that the Author cannot
  meet the User needs, then an alternate form which is accessible needs
  be provided that is as close to the original functionality as is
  technically possible.
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 17:22:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC