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

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

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:08:42 -0500 (EST)
To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>, Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0003201706360.11137-100000@tux.w3.org>
Actually I agree with Kynn. The priority scheme says that if you don't meet
level-A there are some group or groups of people who are not able to access
the content. Priority 2 - double-A - includes all the things that are
important  to remobing barriers which put some people at a significant
disadvantage in trying to access content.



On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote:

  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.
Received on Monday, 20 March 2000 17:08:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:08 UTC