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

Re: level A and double A

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:19:23 -0500 (EST)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: Geoff Deering <gdeering@acslink.net.au>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0201211413480.27485-100000@tux.w3.org>
OK, to expand on my thoughts.

If you are going for a conformance level, I would aim for at least double-A.
(that's the one sentence bit)

In order to maximise accessibility yuou should consider your known audience,
and as many checkpoints (of any level) as you are able to easily implement,
as your starting point. From there, you should consider aiming to improve the
acessibility as far as possible. This might involve including to some extent
an audience not well served at the inital point. Or it might mean completing
all the requirements for a confromance level that is a rough measure of
access in general. Or it might mean targetting specific known audience
members by implementing checkpoints taht help those people. That sort of
decision should be made on a case by case basis. In any event, you should
build into your consideration any future plans you may have, and
opportunities that arise as you upgrade or update content or technologies.

You might consider the way Jakob Nielsen phrased this a few years ago, and
look at which parts of a site to concentrate on as well as which checkpoints
to aim for - some parts might have obvious priority for assigning available
resources. It is worthwhile in a large plan to reserve some resources for
doing things that become necessary due to changing audience or technology
which cannot be predicted in advance.

Chaals

On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 5:29 AM -0500 1/21/02, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >Here is a statement of personal opinion: you should be aiming for at least
  >double-A conformance to WCAG, as the lowest level to provide something
  >aproaching equal access for everyone. (I realise it isn't a perfect
  >statement, because the guidelines are not perfect. But for a defined target
  >it is as close as I can get in one sentence).

  My personal opinion:

  What you should aim for is less dependent on what (arbitrary) categories
  certain checkpoints were put into, and more dependent upon your content,
  your audience, and your ability to meet the requirements of various
  checkpoints.

  --Kynn



-- 
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, 21 January 2002 14:19:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT