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 08:52:21 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <003701c175d1$8d60f1c0$2b91003e@dev1>
I think the presentation of this needs a lot of thought, When I contact
organizations about accessibility, one of the big problems is that people
will read minimal requirements as the extent of their responsibility.
Minimum conformance will be the end point for many content providers.

On the other hand we must present accessibility as not presenting undue
burden.

I propose that we brake it up into retrofitting first step requirements and
content creation first step requirements.

Retrofitting:  were the content provider has already a website, and
restructuring the navigational system is undue burden, hear are some quick
fixes that will increase the accessibility of your site. You site may still
not be properly accessible due to more fundamental problems.

Content creation: You are establishing or revamping  your site, now is the
easiest time to implement far reaching changes that will improve your site's
accessibility.



My specific  comments are inline:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Oliver" <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:26 PM
Subject: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'


> 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'
>
perhaps without alternative access for java scripts, which seems a bit
dated.
> 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.
>
Why? If the benefit to most is substantial, and though who are disadvantaged
are
not greatly disadvantaged.
> 5. The more people that benefit from a Guideline the
> stronger the case for inclusion in the Minimum.
>
Prejudice - It should be the extent of the difficulty not the amount of
people who suffer should determine its inclusion.
> 6. The Guideline must be easy to implement
>
Well, there goes WCAG
> 7. The Guideline must be easily verifiable (this is
> part of the Draft Requirements)
>
Again, If the only thing that allows people to access a page, or not be
misled, is a difficult to test checkpoint, should they be left out in the
cold, on an academic criteria

> 8. The Minimum Standard must be relatively
> straightforward to adapt to changes in technology.
>
> 9. No Guideline in the minimum must be 'technology
> specific'
Why?
>
> 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.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2001 02:52:50 GMT

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