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

Re: level A and double A

From: <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:15:58 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200201231715.JAA23041@garth.idyllmtn.com>
To: charles@w3.org (Charles McCathieNevile)
Cc: kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com (Kynn Bartlett), gdeering@acslink.net.au, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org (WAI GL)
Charles wrote:
> That being said, and recognising that WCAG is a technical statement of what
> (the working group at the time felt) is required for accessibility, and not a
> ready-to-use implementation plan for a large site which is in maintenance and
> ongoing, rather than initial, developmentI still feel that as a rough guide,
> the clearest one-sentence suggestion I would give is "go for double-A
> conformance as a minimum goal".

I don't disagree that it's a bad goal -- definitely _any_ goal is better
than _no_ goal -- but I think many people do use WCAG1 as a ready to use
implementation plan, to the point that all people think they need to
consider is "which level? oh double-A."

It's long been my contention that this is because there is no official
note from W3C that tells how to apply and use this thing; without context,
it's assumed that there are only three ways to utilize WCAG1: single-a,
double-a, and triple-a.  Single-A is clearly minimal and triple-a is
clearly onerous (I guess) so they choose the middle one, but there are
plenty of other ways in which WCAG1 could be used.  In fact, the strong
tying of "all priority 2" checkpoints to all others (via double-a
compliance) means that if someone, for example, has text in an image
for what they consider a valid reason, they might decide to skip all
other priority 2 checkpoints. 

I realize this is nothing new and I have been sounding like a broken
record for quite a while, but I think it is important to bring these
issues up now due to the progress of WCAG2.

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 12:09:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:40 UTC