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

Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 08:30:02 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <001901c175ce$6fb2dbf0$2b91003e@dev1>


> No minimum conformance will be acceptable without inclusion of the needs
of
> the cognitively and reading disabled population. It makes no difference
> whether a blind person is faced with a page of graphics without alt text
or
> a reading disabled person is faced with a page of text without
> illustrations, they are equally inaccessible to the respective users.
> Either situation presents as "no access" to the user.

Amazingly I feel myself disagreeing with you here,
As a dyslexic, I can always down load a screen reader and have sections read
to me when I can not handle more reading.

To be honest, I do not like this minimum requirement thing, I see why it is
important, but as soon as we have said this is the minimum most people will
call it quits, and yes, Anne is right, that reading disabilities will be
left out. Maybe we could call it "first step" .



Equally important is cognitive disabilities, like semantic pragmatic, were
non literal text is taken literally, and the user can actual be misled.

I would say that any checkpoint that could prevent the user being
misinformed or misled, should be in minimum requirements.

yours,
Lisa

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:28 AM
Subject: Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
>
>                                                          Anne
>
> At 05:26 AM 10/24/01 +0100, Graham Oliver wrote:
> >OK well in response to this week's request.
> >
> >Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'
> >
> >1. All Guidelines that are needed to enable 'access
> >to' information (as opposed to 'understanding of')
> >should be included
> >
> >2. The Minimum should be at least as 'strong' as the
> >current 'Single A'
> >
> >3. Any Guideline that is needed to prevent adverse
> >health consequences should be included.
> >
> >4. The inclusion of a Guideline in the minimum should
> >not disadvantage anyone.
> >
> >5. The more people that benefit from a Guideline the
> >stronger the case for inclusion in the Minimum.
> >
> >6. The Guideline must be easy to implement
> >
> >7. The Guideline must be easily verifiable (this is
> >part of the Draft Requirements)
> >
> >8. The Minimum Standard must be relatively
> >straightforard to adapt to changes in technology.
> >
> >9. No Guideline in the minimum must be 'technology
> >specific'
> >
> >A related point is that if a guideline meets the
> >requirements for inclusion in the minimum but does
> >*not* meet 6. and 7. due to technology limitations,
> >then the guideline should be flagged.
> >
> >The flag indicates that when and if the technology
> >advances to allow compliance with principles 6 and 7
> >the guideline will be slotted into the Minimum.
> >
> >Cheers
> >Graham Oliver
> >
> >=====
> >'Making on-line information accessible'
> >Mobile Phone : +64 25 919 724 - New Zealand
> >Work Phone : +64 9 846 6995 - New Zealand
> >AIM ID : grahamolivernz
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >Nokia Game is on again.
> >Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new
> >all media adventure before November 3rd.
>
> Anne Pemberton
> apembert@erols.com
>
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 02:30:32 GMT

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