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

Re: Issue 324: Proposal for revised checkpoint 6.2

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:20:22 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001228100610.0306a050@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Response in JRG:
At 10:28 AM 12/28/2000 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > Ian,
> > I like the new checkpoint.  How do you feel about making the requirement to
> > conform to WCAG 1.0 at a P2 requirement.  I would use the same argument for
> > P2 as the group used to make documentation conformance a P2 level.
>
>I would object to that. Here are some reasons:
>
>  - I'm not convinced you can create a document that
>    conforms to WCAG 1.0 at Level Double-A with plain text.
>    For instance, you might fail 3.3: use style sheets to
>    control layout and presentation. Or 3.6: Mark up lists
>    and list items properly. Or most importantly, 11.1:
>    Use w3c technologies when they are available and
>    appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when
>    supported.
>
>    This means that Notepad couldn't conform to UAAG 1.0
>    if it only supports plain text viewing.

JRG: I don't think UAAG is that interested in notepad conforming, we are 
interested in user agents that render more complex documents.  If all that 
web browsers did was render text content this would be an issue, but since 
the technologies that we are interested (i.e. PDF and other variants) I 
suggest we need the higher standard of WCAG compliance that are applied to 
W3C specs.

>  - By imposing a P2 requirement here, were are in effect saying
>    that all content on the Web must be level Double-A conformant.
>    Otherwise, no user agent will be able to conform to UAAG 1.0.
>    I don't believe we should impose that restriction on authors
>    or user agent developers.

JRG: I think what we would be saying is that the potential of the web 
should be at least double-A conformant content.  If user agents can only 
render single-A compliant information then the potential of the web is only 
single-A compliant content.  The potential of the web should be in my 
opinion triple-A compliant content, so the requirement to allow the 
rendering of at least one double-A compliant content language is a 
compromise between requiring single-A (impossible) and triple-A (easier to 
use).  I think the potential to access content that is not difficult 
(double-A) for people with disabilities is important and the argument used 
for at least one double-A conformant version of the documentation.


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 Thursday, 28 December 2000 11:18:54 GMT

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