W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: Watered-down Content And Guidelines 2.0

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 10:41:07 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
CC: "Juan Ulloa" <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>
Message-Id: <20040818094107.M32460@ieee.org>

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Juan Ulloa" <julloa@bcc.ctc.edu>

> Harry wrote:
> >  At least with WCAG 1.0 the rules were clear - and there were no
> escape
> >  clauses. What we really need is for WCAG 1.0 to be re-arranged to
> reflect
> >  genuine accessibility requirements; not a watered-down attempt to
> appease
> >  software vendors.
> Amen!
> A regular joe shmo purchasing a content management product, for 
> example, should be able to go through a list with the vendor and the 
> vendor should be able to say that they comply.   The regular joe 
> shmo shouldn't even need to know the guidelines or have read them in 
> the past.    
> I disagree with the fact that the guidelines should leave room for
> interpretation.

quite - guidelines should be clear and unequivocal, leaving no room for ambiguity.

> Something such as having enough contrast between background and
> foreground should be followed up with what that means (i.e. be able 
> to squint and still read the text). Every person reading the guidelines
> shouldn't need to do research on what enough contrast means; the
> guidelines should offer that explanation to the readers.  

i agree there should be sufficient examples to enable understanding, but the
final decision should lay with expert designers and/or testers, who will in
all likelihood have software at their disposal to make an informed decision as
to whether the contrast is sufficient, and not an arbitrary decision based on
your or my visual judgement. 

Received on Wednesday, 18 August 2004 09:41:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:29 UTC