W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Guidelines vs Standards (was Checkpoint 3.3)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
cc: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net" <webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9907201807190.29442-100000@tux.w3.org>
I don't think there is a problem saying that all the things which you
"should" do to make your website accessible are things that you should do.

If people or organisations are not prepared to implement accessibility
features beyond those that are going to be required for a particular level of
conformance then I think the problem is not in the guidelines, but in the
approach that is being taken to the requirement for accessibility. In that
case, I would suggest that the problem is best approached by the education
and outreach activity - http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO

The conformance section had to balance the desire on the part of some for a
single yes/no test of accessibility, with the belief of others that such a
thing is impossible, or meaningless, and a desire from others still for a
much wider range of possible conformance levels.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  This is my position too; I think the guidelines are great as guidelines
  but the conformance section, and the implication that you should use
  ALL "shoulds" (P2) if you use ANY, is the part that is broken.
  
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 1999 18:13:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:33 UTC