W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: documentation question

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:21:12 -0400
Message-ID: <37C5E808.AC7097A6@w3.org>
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
CC: WAI User Agent Working Group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
David Poehlman wrote:
> 
> is it possible for documentation to conform to wcag and still be
> inaccessible? 

I think it's possible for a document
to conform to WCAG and not be accessible. Even if WCAG 
were perfect (which it's not), it would still be possible. 
But if WCAG is good, it will be unlikely.

As to your proposal below, I think we don't need to add the
word "accessible". We could say "Ensure that you have
accessible electronic documentation." But to the question
"How do you know it's accessible?" the best we can answer
today with any supporting material is "If it conforms to WCAG."
So we can jump straight to "Ensure you have documentation
that conforms to WCAG."

 - Ian

>  or to put it another way, would it be redundant to add
> the word accessible to the following taken from the minutes?
> >
> > Does accessible doc checkpoint apply to non Web-based docs?
> >
> > Proposed: Add "electronic".
> >
> > CMN: But must add that documentation must be available in electronic form.
> > "Ensure that there is a
> > version of the product documentation that conforms to WCAG 1.0"

That's an interesting question. I 

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Received on Thursday, 26 August 1999 21:21:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC