Dimensionality of WCAG 2

During the telecon last week, I raised the issue of two different dimensions
that exist in WCAG 2, which continue to cause problems in discussions. The
one dimension is the importance (core, extended), and the other dimension is
the conformance level (succes criteria, best practice, information). For
both dimensions you have level of obligation, which makes it complicated.
(you _must_ do all of the core, but _could_ do extended but for each
guideline you choose to follow (either in core or extended), you _must_ meet
the succes criteria but _could_ meet best practices).

To illustrate the problem, I made a picture in which I added a 3d dimension
: the category of the guidelines (perceivable, operable, understandable,
robust). It can be found on: http://www.dutchgenealogy.nl/test/wcag_3d.gif
Together, the three dimensions describe all the different aspects of the
WCAG 2 guidelines.

To make WCAG 2 a document that can be easily implemented, I think it might
be necessary to integrate the two different dimensions for importance and
conformance. If it's already confusing to us who are really into these
guidelines, I don't even want to think about how confusing it will be for
people for whom this is their first experience with accessibility. The WCAG
document should be very clear to all about what is required and what is
optional. The current situation, especially the optional guidelines with
required criteria, is asking for trouble IMHO.

I'm sorry I can't do much more than point out the problem at this time. I'm
thinking about ways to integrate the two dimensions but haven't been
successful so far. That's why I decided to write this mail to the list. I
first want to know if the rest of you think the multiple dimensions are a
problem as well. If so, maybe we can put our heads together and think of a
solution.

Yvette Hoitink
CEO Heritas, Enschede, The Netherlands

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 11:45:13 UTC