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

Biggest Objection to OTACS-2

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 08:37:12 -0700
Message-Id: <a0510030bb80083d43bf1@[]>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 4:51 PM -0500 2001/10/25, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>Here is a variation on the  "Only the Author can supply" approach
>proposed by Wendy.
>OTACS - 2   (Only the Author Can Supply)
>The minimum set for compliance (equiv to single A rating today) would be
>composed of those items which cannot be derived or deduced by a tool or
>the reader with a disability and must therefore be supplied by the

If a tool can solve this, then it becomes an Authoring Tool or a User
Agent issue, not a Web Content issue.  If a tool can correctly process
the information then such a tool can be run on the user's side, and it
is not the author's responsibility.

Therefore, there should be absolutely no WCAG 2 checkpoints/guidelines
which are not "minimum set" via OTACS-2.

Is this correct?  Do you agree or disagree?

My take on web accessibility is that ultimately the question of
accessibility boils down to:

(a) Knowing what information you need to provide (as an author), and
(b) Knowing how to properly encode that information so it can be
     utilized by the end user.

I maintain that the set of all checkpoints which fit this definition --
and which fit OTACS-2 -- is equal to the set of all checkpoints which
belong in WCAG 2.  There are no checkpoints which do not meet OTACS-2,
which should nevertheless be included in WCAG 2.

Therefore, this is a poor choice for distinguishing a "minimum set" of
WCAG 2 checkpoints.


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2001 12:19:30 UTC

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