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

RE: Trying to better explain concern about mappingtechnology-specificsto success criteria

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:50:02 +0200
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <000901c22c7b$de9b1460$3100000a@lisa>


Jason I completely agree. I think many people in the group would also agree
with you.

I bring this up because it was explained to me on a recent teleconference
(where we were discussing Hebrew vowels) that our conditions for a
requirement to be level one success criteria include that it is commonly
implemented.

can we clarify that this condition does not, at this time, achieve
consensus?


all the best,
Lisa



Lisa Seeman writes:
 >
 >
 > I think that you are on to a good thing Joe,  but I think your examples
are
 > not quite right. The place were i feel there is an over dependence on
what
 > is "commonly used" is in placement of success criteria. The priority
 > leveling of success criteria are dependent on the extent which a
requirement
 > is already commonly implemented. In other words, if a requirement is not
 > already widely implemented it will be lower priority.

In general I don't think our success criteria are guilty of this,
though anyone who thinks they are is welcome, indeed encouraged, to
point out places where it occurs.

The other issue to bear in mind here is that WCAG also provides the
basis of the requirements in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines;
the priorities in WCAG have a significant impact on the requirements
and priorities of UAAG.

Thus if we were to set priorities on the basis of what is commonly
implemented, the effect would be (1) that authors aiming for level 1
conformance would not implement them; (2) that they would be of lower
priority in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines and the Authoring
Tool Accessibility Guidelines; and (3) because of (1) and (2), user
agent and authoring tool developers would be less inclined to
implement them, resulting in a self-reinforcing cycle of
non-implementation, independently of other motives that are likely to
influence developers.

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/02

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/02
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 22:47:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT