W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Agenda

From: lisa <lisa@jctech.co.il>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:55:27 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I see a difference between a web author deciding to tailor for a given
end user group, and in us legitimizing their decisions to exclude.

Let me be blunt. We could end up with a prioritization system which
rates the ability to access of some groups, however small in number or
unattractive they may be, as lower priority.

Now if there is one thing that all disabilities groups have in common,
it is alienation form societies. Now we can not stop that through WCAG,
but we do not have to be part of the process.

With a modular system the individual web author and policy maker may
well decide to leave out some disabilities groups. We can not stop that.
But let us not put our seal of approval on it either. And let us supply
the meta data so that a person can find the sites were they are wanted.

All the best
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:45 PM
To: 'lisa Seeman'; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; 'Web Content
Subject: RE: Agenda

Sorry you cannot make it

Couple of questions then to clarify.

1 - you said you liked modular approach better - so we didn't
discriminate.   As I understood modular approach - it meant that people
could pick which checkpoints to include or exclude.   Current proposal
is to require that all checkpoints be included at least at minimum
level.      I thought the current proposal sounded better for your
concern.   Please expand your thought because I'm missing something.

2 -  Yes - cognitive is perhaps the largest group depending on how it is
defined.   The comment wasn't about the relative sizes of disability
groups though.  (One of our consensus items was that conformance should
not be able to be disability specific --- so relative sizes or
visibility or anything else of major disability groups did not arise. )
The item was about how universally needed something was within a major
disability group.

3 -  Correct.   Testability did not demote success criteria to lower
levels under the current consensus of the group.   Success criteria
needed to be testable at all levels - unless we change our minds.

PS     I too think we want to get to machine readable and understandable
text as a goal for better access.  I think it is the best chance for
getting access to text at all the different cognitive and language
levels that might be needed - and for  agent assisted access as well.
How to do it will indeed be a long topic.  Thanks for starting up the
discussion.  As Co-chair I also thank you for thinking to take it off
list since it will be a big topic.   And put me on the list.

Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
 > Of lisa Seeman
 > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 3:52 AM
 > To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; Web Content Guidelines
 > Subject: Re: Agenda
 > I can not make it as it is a Jewish festival tonight.
 > my comments are:
 > 1, I like Kynns modular approach much better. We need a more flexible
 > if we are not going to discriminate against some disabilities within
 > guidelines (even if it is just in terms of numbers)
 > 2 on
 > " Absolute essentials.  If these aren't done - most everyone in a
 > disability group can't access the information.  (e.g. no
 > captions)"
 > Please note the largest disabilities groups are thoughs with cognitive
 > disabilities. There needs must be addressed as P1 or equivalent.
 > 3.
 > Minimal conformance to a guideline may require some testability. That
 > not  mean that checkpoints without testability need to be demoted for
 > prioritization levels as well.
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
 > To: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
 > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:53 PM
 > Subject: Agenda
 > > Thursday, 16 May, 20:00 UTC - 4 PM US Eastern, 10 PM France, 6 AM
 > > Eastern Australia, on +1-617-252-1038:
 > >
 > > 1. The conformance scheme. See Gregg's latest summary to the list at
 > >
 > >
 > > 2. Guideline 5. Issues related to guideline 5 arose at last week's
 > >    meeting; thus it seems best to address them directly. Note that
 > >    Cynthia's proposed reworking of guideline 5 is included in the
 > >    latest internal working draft.
 > >

Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 5/7/2002
Received on Monday, 20 May 2002 16:50:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC