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

RE: SRJC Web Accessibility Guidelines

From: Mike Paciello <paciello@webable.com>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 10:17:55 -0400
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Bruce Bailey" <bbailey@clark.net>, <thammon@pacbell.net>, "wai-ig list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LPBBLAFOCBGBPOEHHLNGAEFLCFAA.paciello@webable.com>
I agree with Kynn's observation below. The WAI guidelines are viewed (and
should be positioned by the W3C) as the primary, exhaustive resource that
organizations of all types can work from and/or turn to. Then, within the
framework of that organization, decisions can be made to increase
accessibility according to user/client needs.

Specific, mandatory standards/guidelines can only be dictated by legal
entities or by an organizations' own established standards and/or set of
rules.

The rest is all up to evangelism....

- Mike


-----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Kynn Bartlett
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:34 PM
> To: Bruce Bailey; thammon@pacbell.net; wai-ig list
> Subject: RE: SRJC Web Accessibility Guidelines
>
>
> 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 Friday, 5 May 2000 10:15:07 GMT

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