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

Re: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:52:33 -0400
Message-ID: <399D5BC1.6293B24E@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>, "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> 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.

How about the following relative expression of the checkpoint:

  Provide a version of the product documentation that 
  conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 
  1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1 for Level A conformance, Priority 2
  for Level Double-A conformance, Priority 3 for Level Triple-A
  conformance.]

1) This isn't too long or complicated.
2) The implication is that if you want to be a level Double-A
   conforming UA, your documentation has to conform to WCAG 1.0
   level A. If you want to be a Triple-AAA UA, your documentation
   has to be Triple-AAA WCAG.

   I think that the real implication there is that there will
   never be any Triple-AAA user agents...

3) The best documentation is no documentation (i.e., the
   user interface is so good you don't need any)!

 - Ian


> 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



-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 11:52:40 GMT

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