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

Definitions (Was RE: WAMM! -- I-Can Online)

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:35:11 -0500
To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: "Web Accessibility Initiative" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001bf92b4$2bdf8260$53fe330a@msde>
Kynn,

You said:
> I use the phrase "minimally accessible" as a complete synonym for
> "WCAG P1 Compliant," myself.

That strikes me as a little harsh!  How good does a site have to be before
getting your seal of approval?  Do you have a complete synonym for an AA
site?  An AAA site?

Granted, we are debating the merits of promoting a few P2 items, and we
don't want to discourage folks from addressing as many P2 and P3 items as
possible.  Still, meeting A compliance levels means that a site is pretty
damn accessible, especially compared to the majority of sites out there!
Add to that the fact that many non WCAG P1 Compliant sites are perfectly
usable (with a screen reader or whatever) once one experiments enough to
learn which unlabeled [LINK]'s are important and which are not.  What is the
vernacular for describing such a site, "less than minimally accessible"?
Add to that the fact that many P2 and P3 items (given the current state of
the art with browsers) are pretty much inconsequential.

I think it is counter productive to be dismissive of Level A compliance.

Not that it is really all that hard to do.  Still I would be all for a
virtual ticket-tape parade for each and every large commercial site that
achieved Level A compliance.  On the average, out of anyone's "top 100"
sites list, how many are "minimally accessible"?  5?  10?  1?  The current
state of accessibility is pathetic!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2000 12:55 PM
> To: Bruce Bailey
> Cc: thatch@us.ibm.com; Web Accessibility Initiative
> Subject: RE: WAMM! -- I-Can Online
>
> At 09:27 AM 3/9/2000 , Bruce Bailey wrote:
>> Maybe we need a new word or phrase.  "Accessible" has a great variety of
>> meaning, much of which in the vernacular has nothing to do with
>> disability.
>> "WCAG P1 Compliant" might be more accurate, but meaningless to
>> most folks.
>> Personally I am willing to keep up the crusade (tough work) that
>> "accessible" *means* "accessible to folks with disabilities".
>
> I use the phrase "minimally accessible" as a complete synonym for
> "WCAG P1 Compliant," myself.
Received on Monday, 20 March 2000 16:38:07 GMT

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