W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: SRJC Web Accessibility Guidelines

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 14:33:46 -0700
Message-Id: <a04310129b5379c318b84@[10.0.1.2]>
To: "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, <thammon@pacbell.net>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 2:11 PM -0400 5/03/2000, Bruce Bailey wrote:
>Terry,
>
>I would very interested in understanding why Santa Rosa decided to develop
>their own guidelines rather than just endorsing the WCAG?  There is a check
>list (similar in format to yours) at URL:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/full-checklist.html
>which you might have deleted the P2 and P3 items from.  How did that list
>not suit your needs?

In my opinion, Santa Rosa did the right thing.  The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines are a wonderful thing, but they are not
an implementation plan that can be used by an organization or
company.  The correct use of the WCAG in these cases is as a
foundation for building an implementation plan, which can include
both WCAG sources and other sources that might also be appropriate
for any given site.

I believe WCAG 1.0 priority 1 checkpoints are "must haves" for any
implementation plan, and then priority 2 and 3 checkpoints
considered individually, plus any additional requirements.  (In
no case would I ever advise anyone to -not- include WCAG p1 in
their own guidelines.)

--Kynn

PS:  WCAG actually does specify some "de facto" implementation
      plans by the single-A/double-AA/triple-AAA conformance
      system, but in my opinion, that produces *terrible* plans for
      practical implementation of increased accessibility, and
      I consider the conformance levels to border on being
      dangerous...
-- 
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2000 17:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:48 GMT