W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:51:13 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0712111551x2fcbaa10mff7ca93c3155f321@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Geert Freyhoff" <G.Freyhoff@inclusion-europe.org>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

The working group agrees that many documents can be translated into
easy to read language.  The problem is that to be at level A or AA, it
would have to be possible with all pages.  And the working group does
not believe that this is possible.


Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Comment 2: Include criterion 3.1.5 in levels A and AA
> Source:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0302.
> html
> (Issue ID: 2157)
> ----------------------------
> Original Comment:
> ----------------------------
> To be able to access content in easy-to-understand language is of
> paramount importance for people with cognitive disabilities. It is in
> fact the core success criterion for this group of disabled people that
> must be met by all public websites. Therefore, it must be associated
> with level A and not only with level AAA.
> Proposed Change:
> Include success criterion 3.1.5. also in levels A and AA.
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> Because of the tighter limits that this success criterion places on
> content, we feel it is appropriate at level AAA.  Many legal documents
> cannot have alternative or supplemental content, and cannot be expressed
> in language at the primary level.
> -----------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------------
> This answer from the Working Group shows the limited knowledge and
> experience in the Working Group about accessibility issues for people
> with intellectual disabilities. There are many examples of legal
> documents that have been translated into easy-to-read format, meaning in
> an alternative content expressed in a language that does not require
> more than primary level education to be understood.
> Out of many examples of legal texts that were provided in alternative
> easy-to-read format, we want to highlight just the following: the
> Austrian government has asked and paid for the translation of new laws
> in a way that is accessible for people with intellectual disabilities.
> The results are available at:
> http://www.atempo.at/index.php?node=606&id=520&size=2&lang=1&
> http://www.atempo.at/index.php?node=599&id=511&size=2&lang=1&
> http://www.atempo.at/index.php?node=510&id=435&size=2&lang=1&
> Additional examples include the UN Convention on the Rights of People
> with Disabilities, the UN Standard Rules for the Equalization of
> Opportunities for People with Disabilities, the European Commission
> Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, as well as
> many national laws and policies in many European countries.
> Beyond legal texts, people with intellectual disabilities are interested
> in the same things than other adults: music, motorbikes, soccer,
> dancing, and of course rights, only to name a few. It is therefore clear
> discrimination when authors provide information requiring a higher
> degree of understanding than primary level education and when they do
> not provide alternative content.
> Inclusion Europe therefore points out that keeping this criterion at the
> AAA level is a clear case of indirect, i.e. structural, discrimination.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 23:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:45 UTC