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

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.

Regards,

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.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> INCLUSION EUROPE COMMENT:
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> 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