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

Re: A little back to basics (Re: Users should have (Re: Fresh start? Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities))

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:00:15 -0500 (EST)
To: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@sonic.net>
cc: <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112310242130.29945-100000@tux.w3.org>
I think that what yu have suggested is merely a longer (and therefore more
explicit) version of what is in WCAG 1.0. It reflects roughly what I think
of when I use the term "accessible page", and I think it makes a good
definition.

If we were to take it further, we would point out that landing on a page
doesn't mean that the only way to provide the access required is through the
content that is on that page. There are various other possiblities - a page
might be negotiated to provide the content in sensible useful chunks (yes, I
have used a W3C spec on a mobile phone, and the gateway I had sensibly cut it
into useful pieces, using the structure required at level double-A of WCAG
conformance).

A set of versions can not, I don't think, be accessible if they assume that I
have come to them through some particular path - it must be possible for any
user to get to the version that will suit them from any version they happen
to hit, at least until we have a reliable way of users being able to identify
the capabilities and preferences for content automatically.

cheers

Chaals

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Scott Luebking wrote:

  Hi,

  Thanks.  Was there any thought given to a definition like:

      "A web page can be considered accessible to a person with a disability
      if that person can understand the content on the page and be able
      to interact with that information with the goal of being as effective
      and efficient as a person without a disability when using the web page."

  In some ways, the second approach doesn't make sense.  One problem is
  that it is possible to follow the guidelines and still end up with a web
  page which can be not easily understood.  Also, the principles do not
  necessarily make content accessible on various devices.  Ever try to use
  a long web page which meets the guidelines from a web-enabled cell phone?


  Another possible definition could be something like:

      "A set of versions of a web page can be considered accessible to
      a person with a disability if both of these conditions are true:

        a.  each version in the set has the exact same information and
            equivalent interaction with the information as that of any
  	  other version in the set

        b.  the set contains a version of the web page such that the person
            can understand the content on the page and be able to interact with
  	  that information with the goal of being as effective and efficient
  	  as a person without a disability when using the web page."

  Kind of long.

  Scott

  > At 3:42 PM -0800 12/27/01, Scott Luebking wrote:
  > >Hi,
  > >
  > >I'm preparing some answers to some questions from some CHI-WEB people.
  > >Is there a definition of what an accessible web page is?  (This might
  > >also be helpful for any future testing.)
  >
  > A page is considered accessible if it can be used by users with
  > disabilities.  It's not a very rigorous definition, but it's the
  > one in WCAG 1:
  >
  > <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#accessible"
  >              xml:space="preserve">
  >       Accessible
  > Content is accessible when it may be used by someone with a disability.
  > </blockquote>
  >
  > There are obviously serious problems with this definition.
  >
  > WCAG 2.0 draft does not attempt to define accessible, but instead
  > refers to accessible web sites and, by implication, kinda defines
  > accessibility:
  >
  > <blockquote cite="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#intro-purpose">
  > This document outlines design principles for creating accessible Web
  > sites. When these principles are ignored, individuals with
  > disabilities may not be able to access the content at all, or they
  > may be able to do so only with great difficulty. When these
  > principles are employed, they also make Web content accessible to a
  > variety of Web-enabled devices, such as phones, handheld devices,
  > kiosks, network appliances, etc. By making content accessible to a
  > variety of devices, the content is now accessible to people in a
  > variety of situations.
  > </blockquote>
  >
  > Hope this helps.
  >
  > --
  > Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
  > Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
  > Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
  > January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 31 December 2001 03:49:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:17 GMT