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: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 23:41:09 -0700
Message-Id: <a05100310b7feb430cd63@[]>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Devil's advocacy follows.

At 8:30 AM -0800 2001/11/25, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>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" .

The minimum requirement should present everything needed to ensure that
users are not shut out from using the web.

But then again, anything that we write in this document is probably there
to ensure that users are not shut out from the web.

Q.e.d., the minimal conformance should be equal to the whole document.
We should only include principles which _must_ be followed.  We should
avoid working on any checkpoints which don't actually deal with preventing
people with disabilities from using the web.  And if there is a checkpoint
which, if followed, allows access to the web, we should present that as
a minimal principle.

What is the point of our attempt to label certain checkpoints as
"optional?"  Are we really wanting to actively discourage their
implementation?  If so, what is the reason for doing so?  Does it
increase accessibility?  If so, does it do it fairly?  (Or does it
really cut out those people whose needs don't fall into nice
"checkable" checkpoints?)


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 02:59:10 UTC

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