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

RE: "Wide applicability" was Trying to better explain concern about mappingtechnology-specificsto success criteria

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 00:04:13 -0500
To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <004b01c22d4f$6519a140$026fa8c0@laptop600>

Hi Lisa

"Wide applicability"   and   "commonly used"  are not the same.  They
actually mean quite different things.

Wide applicability means that it would apply across websites.  It
doesn't mean that it is in fact used or commonly used.  (though I hope
we wouldn't require something that isn't used)

And the discussion about Israel was not about the fact that every page
had to be changed.   It had to do with determining if it was indeed
necessary to disambiguate the words.   

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf
> Of Lisa Seeman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:35 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Cc: 'WAI-GL'
> Subject: "Wide applicability" was Trying to better explain concern
about
> mappingtechnology-specificsto success criteria
> 
> 
> 
> Found it:
> 
> in the 20 June 2002 - WCAG WG Teleconference Minutes
> 
> "Wide applicability" is what the crytira for proritisation of success
> cytirea that was used to asume that putting in hebrew vowels could not
be
> level one.
> 
> I think we need to clarifie what that does and does not mean
> and more to the point does it include that:
> "If every page in Israel has to be changed " should disqualifie a
requirment
> as level one.
> By the way,if we go with that then there are no level one requirments.
> Look at the Israely access orgenisatins and lobbiests
>  http://www.access-israel.com
> and
> http://www.yadsarah.org.il/english
> 
> both sites are not at all slightly minimumly accesible
> 
> (I am working with them to improve - they are willing but had not
heard of
> web accesibilty).
> 
> all the best
> Lisa
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Seeman [mailto:seeman@netvision.net.il]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:50 AM
> To: 'jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au'
> Cc: 'WAI-GL'
> Subject: RE: Trying to better explain concern about
> mappingtechnology-specificsto success criteria
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> ---
> 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 Wednesday, 17 July 2002 01:05:01 GMT

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