W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2006

RE: normative issues to close

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:23:17 -0600
To: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <033801c64d70$bb6ee240$ef64d946@NC6000BAK>
Hi Bruce,

 

Feels funny since I just saw you downstairs.    

 

You make a good point.   These were meant to describe what we were doing
more or less - but at this point they look more definite than they are.
What puts something into one level or another is a very complex mix of 

-          Impact on disabilities (absolute barrier that can't be overcome
by AT for example)

-          applicability across websites

-          Do-ability across websites 

-          Impact on appearance of default page presentation

-          Effort

-          Support 

-          Etc

 

Perhaps we should just say

 

*         Level 1 success criteria: 

1.      Achieve a minimum level of accessibility

2.      Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.

*         Level 2 success criteria: 

1.      Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility

2.      Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.

*         Level 3 success criteria: 

1.      Achieve additional accessibility enhancements for people with
disabilities.

2.      Are not necessarily applicable to all Web resources.

 

 

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Bailey, Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:45 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: normative issues to close

 

> If you know of any others - please let me know

I still don't believe the distinction between WCAG 1.0 priorities and WCAG
2.0 levels is clear enough.  I say this, despite working hard to understand,
and despite Gregg's having explained it two me twice on the phone in recent
weeks.

The conformance section [1,2] makes it explicit that priority and level
"differs in important ways" and all levels of success criteria "are
essential for some people."  The intent is clear that "importance" as a
paraphrase for level is not appropriate (although this worked with WCAG 1.0
priorities), but not enough has been given to replace the former concept.

The difference between "minimum", "enhanced", and "additional" accessibility
is not defined.  I am going to work backwards from Level 3 to level 1.

"Level 3 success criteria ... are not applicable to all Web resources."

Okay, fine, very understandable.  So far, so good.

"Level 2 success criteria achieve achieve an enhanced level of accessibility
through ... the design of the content and presentation."

This is also very understandable, and we went through a great exercise with
an earlier draft labeling SC as invisible or not.  But this is the first
potential problem I think:

1)  Do we not have some non-invisible SC that are level 1?  If so, what is
the justification for that?  Is this discussed in the Understanding WCAG?

But, non-invisibility is not the only reason for making a SC level 2.  There
is also:

"Level 2 success criteria achieve an enhanced level of accessibility through
... markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with or enable
access through user agents, including assistive technologies."

But the *only* difference between this and level 1 definition is "an
enhanced" versus "a minimum".  What is the objective measure for when
"markup, scripting, or other technologies" goes from level 1 to level 2?  I
cannot find it.  This leads to the next two problems I find with the
normative material (and not potential either, since maybe there are no
invisible level 1 SC).

2)  The considered deliberation of setting a particular SC as level 1 or 2
based is not clearly reflected in the Guidelines.  If one wants to
understand why a particular SC is level 2, one has to do a great deal of
research through the wiki and the minutes.

3)  Adding to the above, it is not clear when it is markup (etc.) or
non-invisibility -- or both -- that causes a SC to be level 2.  Again, maybe
could be researched through wiki and the minutes, but why make readers work
that hard?

I have a proposal to address the above three concerns:

<current>
Level 2 success criteria:
1.  Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility through one or both of the
following:
        a.  markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with or
enable access through user agents, including assistive technologies
        b.  the design of the content and presentation
2.  Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
</current>

<proposed>
Level 2 success criteria:
1.  Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility through one or both of the
following:
        a.  more complex markup, scripting, or other technologies that
interact with or enable access through user agents, including assistive
technologies;
        b.  significant impact on the design of the content and
presentation.
2.  Can reasonably be applied to all Web resources.
</proposed>

The above makes it more clear that WCAG 2.0 conformance level has less to do
with importance and more to do with level of effort or impact on site.  This
also provides the wiggle room for a non-invisible SC to be Level 1 and makes
the reason why a particular SC is Level 2 less crucial.  I also tweaked the
ending punctuation.

Also, the "Examples of conformance claims" need to be double checked.  The
one that I spotted first:

Example 1 ... Safari 1.2 (Mac), and Opera 7.5 (OSX).

Should probably be:  Safari 2.0.3 (OS X), and Opera 7.54u2 (OS X).

I am not sure how specific examples should be with regard to versions.
Other numbers cited should also be double checked.

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20060317/conformance.html
[2] http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=New_Conformance_Section
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 2006 05:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:45 GMT