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

At 8:52 AM -0800 2001/11/25, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>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.

Yes.

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

Why must we do this?  If the truth is that certain things are difficult
(or easy) but are absolute requirements for access, then we need to
not say "this is too hard, therefore, those people over there don't
get to use the World Wide Web."

>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.
>

In a previous email I described a modular scheme which could be used
to "assemble" accessibility policies.  A "legacy data" accessibility
policy would be an excellent "sample policy" in a collection of
WCAG 2.0 applications published as a W3C Note.

--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, 26 October 2001 02:58:31 UTC