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, 28 Oct 2001 10:45:15 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <00ae01c15fe0$af72bd90$0a95003e@dev1>
I love it when Kynn gets to it.
I completely agree, that checkpoints should not be excluded from minimal
requirements, because :
a, they are hard to implement
b, they are hard to test

I wonder if any checkpoint is impossible to test. With a good QA department,
control groups of users, the right equipment, .....
expensive and difficult - not impossible.

As to excluding checkpoints that are not easy testable or requires a
judgment call. If  the fulfillment of a checkpoint is a matter for debate it
will promote discussion - and I say, the more the better. It is discussion
and real live testing that will help the contented provider understand what
accessibility is about. Not neat ticks in checkboxes.

My comment that we should consider undue burdens based on real life. I do
not see a benefit from every legislation writing new requirements, so that
undue burden is considered.

I proposal remains that we have alternative sets within the minimal
requirements, one for the retrofitting situation, one easily testable ect.
For each sub set it should be made clear that this is not all the minimal
frequents just thoughts that  can easily be implemented when retrofitting.
Weather we use Kynns grid or something other set would then be the next
debate.

Any objections?

Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access.
Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: 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 Sunday, 28 October 2001 04:45:55 GMT

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