W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2005

RE: Guidelines or Standards

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 08:58:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB50B2D4A29@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Guide Lines list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> I essentially suggested the pertinence of considering another
> aspect, i.e. the fact that regulatory language for one country 
> may not necessarily suit others, due to language and legal 
> tradition or culture. 

Maybe it will or maybe it won't.  No one has offered any evidence, we are just going on intuition.

> the rest of the planet does not necessarily write law 
> according to your country's conventions.

We do know that while perhaps superficially off-putting, there is a long history, tradition, and experience with regulatory language.  In point of fact, there is a robust infrastructure that routinely deals with translating legal requirements and statutory phrasing.  It is reasonable to argue that by deliberately flaunting convention, we are *creating* an obstacle.

> It would be difficult to say until I have 
> seen the reformulations 

The reformulation, for U.S. English, will be left to others if the WAI WG neglects this responsibility.  Who do you have better faith in writing statute?  Subject matter experts or lawyers and bureaucrats?

> My point was clear, well written guidelines will be beneficial for all

Agreed.  Part of the reason for, and an objective of, statutory language *is* clarity.

Phrasing the success criteria so that they don't *require* reformulation -- in at least one language -- can only be helpful.  In the absence of compelling *evidence* to the contrary, why build in know impediments to implementation?

It is a false dichotomy.  Please compare the WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that were adapted into Section 508.  Can one really argue that the 508 phrasing is significantly less comprehensible?

As we know, some WCAG1 P1 checkpoints were omitted from 508.  Is there not the possibility that had WCAG1 be written more clearly (that is, by adhering to the conventions of regulatory language) that more P1 checkpoints might have been picked up?  As the most concrete example, I'll highlight WCAG 1.0 4.1 (now WCAG 2.0 level one sc 3.1.1) for consideration.
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2005 13:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:57 UTC