W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 09:06:29 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000818090051.013b5858@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>, "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I would prefer to define double-A conformance for checkpoint 11.1 and see 
if we get any comments during last call.  My justification for double-A is 
that if the user cannot easily access the documentation, they may not be 
able to find out how to use the user agent or make adjustments to improve 
accessibility.  Therefore I feel we can hold the documentation to a higher 
standard in UAAG.

Jon


At 12:23 AM 8/18/2000 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Well, I would vote for a relative priority as used in ATAG. It seems odd to
>have a triple-A tool where the documentation has removed the absolute
>barriers, but not the significant impediments, to using the documentation.
>
>Charles
>
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
>   Ian Jacobs wrote:
>   >
>   > "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
>
>   > > New:
>   > >
>   > > "11.1 Provide a version of the product documentation that conforms to
>   > > level-A of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. 
> [Priority 1]
>   > > Note: User agents may provide documentation in many formats, but at 
> least
>   > > one must conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 
> [WCAG10]."
>   > >
>   > > Note that I have only required level-A conformance. I don't think 
> that level
>   > > triple-A is appropriate at all; Priority 3 checkpoint "may" help 
> people with
>   > > disabilities. Double-A conformance might be warranted.
>   > >
>   > > I think that we need to minimize such interpendencies.
>   >
>   > It's my opinion that we don't have to say this since to conform at
>   > all to WCAG 1.0 you must conform at least a level-A. However, if people
>   > feel that saying level-A explicitly clarifies the minimal requirement,
>   > I'm ok with this proposal.
>
>   I would go further to say that this is an editorial clarification
>   and I will add it to the next draft (with a note that the WG has
>   not confirmed this proposal). Since we have not specified to date
>   which particular level of WCAG conformance is required, it follows
>   that the minimal level is WCAG Level-A.
>
>   If there is any opposition to Level-A being the minimal level
>   of conformance for this checkpoint, please speak up.
>
>    _ Ian
>
>
>
>
>--
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
>Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 10:05:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT