W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: 2 or 3 Levels

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:55:09 -0500
Message-Id: <200404152255.i3FMtKMM000638@jalopy.cae.wisc.edu>
To: "'Matt May'" <mcmay@w3.org>
Cc: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Matt,

I'm sorry you misread my memo.    I was just reporting the results of the
vote that we took at the end of our discussion.   

Your decision to not vote either  "Prefer" , "Ok,can live with", or "can't
live with" was recorded and reported in my email.  If you wish to change it
to "can't live with' now that is fine.

You will note in my email - and remember from the end of the meeting that
although we technically had a 'consensus' or a 'broad consensus' from the
votes I did not then call it a consensus -- and I did not call it a
consensus in my email either.     (I did explain why we voted with those
categories since most people on list might wonder) 

We needed to have a decision as to whether to rework the guidelines from 3
levels to two - and at the meeting (and in the email) I stated that the
conclusion of the vote was that we would continue with 3 levels. 

At the meeting I was also careful to close by saying that it looked like we
should continue then with three levels but that we would revisit the whole
question again after we had cleaned up the document and knew what the final
items looked like.

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt May [mailto:mcmay@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:02 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'WAI-GL'; 'Joe Clark'
Subject: Re: 2 or 3 Levels

On Apr 14, 2004, at 7:47 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Actually the results from the working group meeting where we discussed  
> this
> were
>
> For two levels (with third level dropped)
>   7  - Prefer    7  - Ok,can live with     6     - Cannot live with     
> 0 -
> Don't know
>
> For two levels  (with three levels collapsed to 2)
>   0  - Prefer    14  - Ok,can live with     6    - Cannot live with    
> 0 -
> Don't know
>
> For Three levels.
>  13   - Prefer   4  - Ok,can live with      0    - Cannot live with    
> 3  -
> Not sure
>
> Since consensus is defined as "I prefer this or at least can live with  
> it"
> we take consensus votes in that fashion
>
> So we are continuing with 3 levels for now.

I said I withheld my opinion on three levels. In retrospect, I'm not  
even sure most of the participants on the call you reference were in  
agreement regarding the scope of the question (i.e., whether this was  
three levels in the document, or three levels of conformance).

The DRC report, which cites that zero of the thousand homepages it  
tested conformed to AAA, gives me evidence to back up my belief that a  
AAA level of conformance is not readily achievable, and as such, is not  
a desirable target. I would still rather have two levels we can hold up  
as viable alternatives than have a third that will only be claimed by  
users who are ignorant of accessibility, or liars.

In short, no, there is not consensus in the vote that was taken. If a  
formal objection[1] is necessary, I will write one.

-
m
[1]  
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/ 
policies.html#WGArchiveMinorityViews
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 18:56:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT