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

RE: FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:45:52 -0800
To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c2a14d$ee836f20$5f814094@rose>

I'm a little confused as to why we brought up US law.  What is the
purpose of relating to only the US laws?  Many other countries have laws
regarding accessibility for the disabled and not as soft-hearted to
businesses as the US views.

So, someone please explain why we want to become soft-hearted on some
issues and not so soft-hearted on other issues.

Thanks,
Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of john_slatin
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:21 AM
To: 'Charles McCathieNevile'; john_slatin
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments



I agree with Charles.  U.S. law provides for exceptions in cases of
"undue burden," but the standard for "undue burden" is quite high and,
in my understanding, not usually tied only to cost.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:13 PM
To: john_slatin
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments


I propose that for this checkpoint the qualification be removed. Whether
soeone has the money to provide captions and descritions (and therefore
actually does it) is entirely a matter for policy makers to determine.

The accessiblility need doesn't change at all, but in some cases it may
be a considered policy decision to provide the option of claiming
unjustifiable hardship as a reason not to meet the accessibility need.
howeer in other cases this is not the case. Australian law requires that
government provided services are accessible if it is technically
feasible, and high cost is explicitly not allowed as grounds for not
doing it. If this exclusion is kept then this checkpoint will not be
suitable for policy in Australia and would need to be explicitly called
out as such in Australian government information, whereas if it is left
out the existing exclusions in policy that cover undue hardship will
still mean it makes sense in other jurisdictions as well.

cheers

Charles

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, john_slatin wrote:

>>======
>>Comment #8
>>Ian Jacobs, 06 Oct 2002 [5]
>>(level 2 success criterion #3) "for all live broadcasts that are 
>>professionally produced." The term "professional" is subject to much 
>>interpretation. Does this mean "high quality" or "for money"?
>>
>>Proposal #8
>>reword to: provide captions and audio descriptions for live, 
>>commercially produced broadcasts.
>>Rationale: From what I remember, we were trying to target live 
>>broadcasts where it is feasible (i.e., the producer could afford) to 
>>provide real-time captioning.  Also, there are several comments about 
>>writing criteria in active voice, so I attempted that, also.
>>
>>==========
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 12:46:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT