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

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

From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:54:11 -0400
To: "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, 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>
Message-id: <B49B36B1086DD41187DC000077893CFB8B4473@rosnt46.ets.org>
I concur with Ian.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:38 AM
> To: Charles McCathieNevile
> Cc: Janina Sajka; Gregory J. Rosmaita; User Agent Guidelines Emailing
> List
> Subject: Re: Minority Opinion: UAAG 11.1 (Double-A Documentation)
> 
> 
> 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 10:54:42 GMT

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