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 12:44:57 -0800
To: "'john_slatin'" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c2a156$31f7ad90$5f814094@rose>

Thank you for the explanation.  That helps me a great deal.

I do concur, leaving loop holes in the standards limits the validity of
the standards.  We're facing that now in the US due to the not-so-clear
openness of the ADA.

I don't have the reference, but the Dow Jones is being sued in Australia
by an Australian for libel.  This sets a precedence that has been
unheard of previously.  Now, we could be faced with a web site being
developed in one country not being accessible and being sued in another
country where a person uses the site.  That's an interesting concept to
say the least.  

With this I would have to agree that policy-makers be left to determine
their levels of accessibility based upon their business goals.  Yet, we
should infer the most ardent levels of accessibility.  If we can develop
the standards then people should be able to meet those standards.


-----Original Message-----
From: john_slatin [mailto:john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:21 AM
To: 'Lee Roberts'; john_slatin; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: Checkpoint 1.2 - handling comments

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 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.


-----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.


-----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.



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 13:45:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:43 UTC