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

Re: Minority Opinion: UAAG 11.1 (Double-A Documentation)

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:38:16 -0400
Message-ID: <39EF0758.45E22DE7@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: Janina Sajka <janina@afb.net>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
[snip]
> 
> My proposal is therefore to resolve this by adding a checkpoint at Priority
> level 2 or 3 (according to how importantly the groups rates ease of
> documentation use as a precondition of effective use of a tool), more or less
> as follows:
> 
>  Ensure that at least one version of the product documentation conforms to
>  at least Level Triple-A of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
>  [WCAG10]. [Priority 2or3]

I would support  P3 checkpoint to this effect and oppose a P2 
checkpoint to this effect.

 - Ian
 
> Charles McCN
> 
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Janina Sajka wrote:
> 
>   I would agree with Gregory. But, I want to offer yet another reason.
> 
>   If triple a comploiance AAA, is meaningful, then it should be
>   required. Surely, defining three levels of compliance was not an idle
>   academic exercise. As Gregory notes, access to documentation is
>   critical. So, if the WAI believes in its own work, it should support it by
>   requiring that it be implemented.
> 
> 
> 
>                                 Janina Sajka, Director
>                                 Technology Research & Development
>                                 Governmental Relations Group
>                                 American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
> 
>   janina@afb.net
> 
> 
>   On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> 
>   > OBJECTION: WCAG Conformance Level Cited in UAAG Checkpoint 11.1 Too Low
>   >
>   > The current checkpoint 11.1 (29 September 2000 Draft) reads,
>   >
>   >
>   > Although I am encouraged that the WCAG conformance level defined as the
>   > minimum for satisfying this checkpoint has been raised from Level-A to
>   > Double-A, I still believe that Double-A conformance is, in this instance,
>   > manifestly insufficient, as documentation is the cornerstone of
>   > accessibility.  It should be incumbent upon UA developers to ensure that at
>   > least one version of the product documentation conforms to Level Triple-A
>   > of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, as many of the most commonly
>   > used conventions utilized in software documentation (such as abbreviations
>   > and acronyms) are only accorded a Priority 3 in WCAG, but whose utility in
>   > deciphering documentation is indispensable.
>   >
>   > RATIONALE:
>   >
>   > There are several reasons for holding documentation to the highest
>   > standards possible.  Two of the most important are:
>   >
>   > 1. When one runs assistive technology in conjunction with "mainstream"
>   > applications, one must constantly guard against potential conflicts between
>   > the two, not only in terms of shared hardware, but shared resources (such
>   > as dynamic link libraries). If the "mainstream" application changes a
>   > hardware setting or overwrites a shared resource, one's adaptive equipment
>   > may suddenly stop functioning, causing system crashes, loss of data,
>   > corruption of key files, damage to essential hardware, etc.
>   >
>   > 2. For many demographic groups, the concept of "learning by perceiving" is
>   > utterly meaningless, because they are physically or cognitively incapable
>   > of obtaining the gestalt view of the application, the intuitiveness of
>   > which is the key to the success of the graphical user interface (as well as
>   > its greatest inherit deficits).
>   >
>   > Therefore, while documentation and README files may not be widely used by
>   > the general populace (at least according to the prevailing wisdom, which is
>   > itself derived from the rhetorical question, "Who here reads documentation
>   > before running or loading a new application?"), both are considered
>   > essential components of any application by the quote disabled unquote user.
>   >
>   > Unless a disabled user can be assured that he or she has access to a
>   > Triple-A compliant version of the complete documentation provided for the
>   > application, the product cannot be deemed "accessible".
>   >
>   > Likewise, if a company fails to ensure that any online documentation,
>   > automatic update features, and download-and-install routines (1) follow the
>   > accessibility guidelines cited in the UAAG Techniques document, and (2)
>   > comply to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines at a Triple-A level,
>   > that company's should not be allowed to claim conformance to the User Agent
>   > Accessibility Guidelines.
>   >
>   > Furthermore, if a company makes a composite conformance claim, it has an
>   > obligation not only to ensure that the third-party applications--which, in
>   > conjunction with the user agent, comprise the subject of the conformance
>   > claim--comply with the UAAG themselves, but that any third party's web site
>   > (especially if it is necessary to download the third party helper
>   > application directly from its developer's web site); as well as any update
>   > routines; the installation procedure; first-run registration dialog boxes;
>   > and the accompanying and online documentation all be as thoroughly
>   > accessible as possible. (This extends to third-party installation
>   > applications/routines utilized by any "mainstream" user agent, as well,
>   > even if it is not cited as part of a composite conformance claim.) A
>   > composite claim can only be considered valid if all of the components of
>   > the composite conformance claim rise to the same level of
>   > accessibility--namely, that outlined both in the UAAG and the UAAG
>   > Techniques document, as well as the platform- and technology-specific
>   > guidelines cited in the UAAG Techniques document, hence my minority opinion.
>   >
>   > Gregory J. Rosmaita
>   > ------------------------------------------------
>   > The optimist thinks that this is the best of all
>   > possible worlds; the pessimist knows it is.
>   > ------------------------------------------------
>   > Gregory J. Rosmaita     <unagi69@concentric.net>
>   >        Webmaster & Minister of Propaganda
>   > The Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group of
>   > the New York City Metropolitan Area (VICUG NYC)
>   >       <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
>   > ------------------------------------------------
>   >
>   >
> 
> 
> --
> 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, Australia
> September - November 2000:
> W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 10:38:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT