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 15:14:21 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001228150213.02fede50@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Response at JRG:

> > >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.

JRG: Checkpoint 6.2 is currently a priority 2 checkpoint so user agents can 
still conform with UAAG at single-A level without including this checkpoint 
as part of its conformance.  I think it is important to separate what the 
author provides from what the user agent is capable of rendering.  A user 
agent that can render WCAG double-A content will help authors who decide to 
provide either single-A or double-A WCAG conformant content.  But if the 
author can only author WCAG single-A content, the author will not no choice 
in providing double-A compliant materials that a user agent could 
render.  The user agent is the limit on how accessible content can be and 
therefore I think the limit should be, at a Priority 2 level, is to allow 
WCAG double-A level content to be rendered.

Jon


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 16:12:52 GMT

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