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

Re: Alternative proposal

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:28:48 +1000
Message-ID: <15322.17936.551260.474834@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
gian@stanleymilford.com.au writes:
 > User Related Requirements (URR)
 > [or as I like to call it TUIK - The User Is King   ; )    ]
 >  
 > The minimum set for compliance (equivalent to single A) would be
 > composed of those items without which a user could not be reasonably
 > expected to access the content and functionality of the site, due to
 > restrictions such as disabilities or technical environments.

Can you improve on this formulation?

What is meant by "access"? What factors should and should not be taken
into account in determining whether a user can be reasonably expected
to access the content? Shouldn't the requirement be formulated in
terms of groups rather than individual users, because individuals can
(due to lack of familiarity with relevant software or other
circumstances) be unable to access material which they could access
given appropriate training or assistance.

I suspect the proposed criterion is fundamentally question begging in
so far as it doesn't provide a clear basis on which to decide what
should be included in the minimum.

The WCAG definition of priority 1, in effect, includes only those
requirements which, if not met, will render the content completely
inaccessible to certain groups of users on account of disability. The
notion of impossibility here was taken strictly--that is, if a tool
could overcome the barrier then the checkpoint qualified as priority 2
rather than priority 1. This is why issues such as table linearization
arising from HTML, were dealt with by priority 2 checkpoints in WCAG
1.0.
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2001 01:28:57 GMT

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