W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > June 2002

Re: [XAG change request] Edit problem statement

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:24:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3D0F7ADB.3050603@w3.org>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
CC: DPawson@rnib.org.uk, wai-xtech@w3.org

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:
> 
>   Amendment to proposed text:
>   Delete 'as possible'.
> 
> CMN
> I am happy either way.
> 
> I put it in because we can't really guarantee accessibility, we can only make
> it easier, and I would like that fact to be more obvious.

Text from section 3 of UAAG 1.0 [1]:

"Note: Conformance to the requirements of this document is expected 
to be a strong indicator of accessibility, but it is neither a 
necessary nor sufficient condition for ensuring the accessibility of 
software. Some software may not conform to this document but still 
be accessible to some users with disabilities. Conversely, some 
software may conform to this document but still be inaccessible to 
some users with disabilities. Some requirements of this document may 
not benefit some users for some content, but the requirements are 
expected to benefit many users with disabilities, for general 
purpose content. For more information, please see the sections on 
known limitations of this document and restricted functionality and 
conformance."


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-UAAG10-20010912/conformance#Conformance





> (the rest of my message can be safely ignored, e.g. by people who don't have
> time to waste on idle thoughts).
> 
> In my opinion we have suffered a bit from people thinking that WCAG
> guarantees accessibility, and then extrapolating the idea that level-A is a
> good place to stop worrying too much. If we were stronger on the idea that
> access is a continuum like usability or style, rather than a binary test we
> might do better in convincing people to go as far as they can. (In my view
> accessibility is part of the same continuum as usability, but some people
> concentrate on usability for folks with disabilities who do things
> differently as users)
> 
> I liked Joe Clark's quote of Dave Winer, as recorded in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2002AprJun/0714
> 
> Chaals
> 
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:
> 
>   Amendment to proposed text:
> 
>   > This document specifies requirements for XML languages to
>   > ensure that people
>   > can create documents in a given XML language which are as
>   > accessible as
>   > possible to people with disabilities, who use a variety of different
>   > techniques and tools to access the Web.
> 
>   Delete 'as possible'.
> 
>   regards DaveP
> 
>   -
> 
>   NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
>   confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>   intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use,
>   disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If
>   you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
>   immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your
>   system.
> 
>   RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any
>   attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it
>   cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are
>   transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
> 
>   Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
>   and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
>   represent those of RNIB.
> 
>   RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
> 
>   Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
> 
>   14th June 2002 is RNIB Look Loud Day - visit http://www.lookloud.org.uk to
>   find out all about it.
> 
> 



-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 14:27:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:37 GMT