W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2011

RE: [w3c-wai-ig] <none>

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:00:51 -0500
Message-ID: <2eb9132d9b85459c6ac48ef3d37de423@mail.gmail.com>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
[Emmanuelle wrote] I feel that is not a "conservative view" but an
"inclusive" view.
Accessibility is for all.

I guess conservative is a dirty word.  What I meant by conservative is the
2nd entry for conservative @ dictionary.com
"cautiously moderate"

That is -- if you took a strict interpretation of what WCAG 2 says you
would find this as a requirement.

A conservative interpretation of a standard can often mean more inclusion
-- it really depends what the standard says.  In this case a conservative
read of though shalt provide labels is more inclusive than a liberal
interpretation of any label off-meets this requirement screen, title, etc.
Because many of our standards are not code specific a conservative view of
them actually lends itself to better functional compliance.   On the
flipside, when standards are too specific in their applicability
conservative approaches often lead to people indicating the standard is
not applicable.

Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 03:01:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:43 UTC