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

RE: FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:20:39 -0600
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B9DC9@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Lee, I only brought up US law as additional justification for agreeing with
Charles' point.  He had mentioned that, as written, the checkpoint would not
work in Australia for legal reasons, and I was simply trying to support
that-- I had no intention of m aking US law the standard.  Quite the
contrary.  Sorry for the confusion!

John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station G9600
FAC 248C
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Roberts [mailto:leeroberts@roserockdesign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:46 pm
To: 'john_slatin'; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments


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 13:20:43 GMT

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