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

Re: Issue 324: Proposal for revised checkpoint 6.2

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:38:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3A4B6C84.C1F7A166@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> 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:
[snip]
> >  - 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. 

It sounds to me like this line of reasoning places the
entire burden of ensuring support for WCAG-conformant content
on checkpoint 6.2. But there are lots of other checkpoints
(P1 through P3) that are there to support WCAG-conformant authoring.
Checkpoint 6.2 just says: To even get the ball rolling, the UA
has 
to implement formats capable of supporting accessible authoring
to begin with.

If we impose Level Double-A conformance to WCAG in checkpoint
6.2, that means that it will be impossible to create a UAAG
conforming browser for formats that only support Level-A
WCAG authoring. Suppose there were a WAI document entitled
"Format Accessibility Guidelines". There would be no
point in this document having a Level A conformance since no
user agent could do only Level A and conform to UAAG 1.0.
Since we don't have a "Format Accessibility Guidelines" today,
we are relying on an indirection, by saying "formats that
allow WCAG conformant authoring." This suggests strongly to
me that if we require WCAG Double-A conformance, then we
render meaningless WCAG's Level A, and I don't recommend that.

> If user agents can only
> render single-A compliant information then the potential of the web is only
> single-A compliant content. 

That's not what 6.2 says. 6.2 only talks about the potential
for accessibility. The other checkpoints for *actual content*
address issues of rendering, navigation, control of style, etc.

 _ Ian

> 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.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 11:38:31 GMT

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