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

Comment LC-1024

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:15:57 +1000
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002f01c7b661$d0458b50$b300a8c0@tkhcomputer>

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1024)

Conformance schema - The decision to remove the design requirement from
Level 1 has meant there is no appreciable difference between Level 1 and
Level 2. I recall many instances where SC were moved to L2 because of this
design requirement, yet I have not seen any indication that these SC are
being moved back in to L1.

Proposed Change:

Merge Level 1 and Level 2 SC into one group called "Mandatory". Rename Level
3 to "Advisory" or "Optional" Alternatively set up a taskforce (which I
volunteer to be a part of, or head) to review L2 and L3 SC to see if they
can be moved to L1.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

The working group feels that there are three categories of success criteria,
so we have retained three levels of conformance. The description of
conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to clarify the levels (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/#overview-levels ):

The word "levels" does not mean that some success criteria are more
important than others. Each success criterion in WCAG 2.0 is essential to
some users, and the levels build upon each other. However, even content that
conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to every person with
a disability.

*In general, Level A success criteria achieve accessibility by supporting
assistive technology while putting the fewest possible limits on
presentation. Thus people with a wide range of disabilities using a wide
range of assistive technologies, from voice input and eye-tracking devices
to screen readers and screen magnifiers, are able to access content in
different ways. In other words, Level A success criteria support the ability
of both mainstream and specialized user agents to adapt content to formats
that meet their users' needs.

*The success criteria in Level AA provide additional support for assistive
technology. At the same time, they also support direct access to content by
the many people who use conventional user agents without assistive
technology. In general, Level AA success criteria place more limits on
visual presentation and other aspects of content than the success criteria
in Level A.

*Level AAA success criteria increase both direct access and access through
assistive technology. They place tighter limits on both presentation and
content.
----------------------------
Response from GSW:
----------------------------
Firstly I strongly object to the statement: "However, even content that
conforms at AAA (triple-A) may not be fully accessible to every person with
a disability or combination of disabilities, especially certain types of
severe disabilities." I believe that a statement like this is a cop-out: the
WG is chartered to develop guidelines that assist people with disabilities
use the web.

Secondly I do not think this explanation of the levels is clear enough -
although it is more clear than previously. Are you indicating that only SC
at Level AA assist people using browsers etc to modify content to their
preferences? Because this is how it currently reads. What I expect the WG
actually means is that Level A is for assistive technologies and people
using browsers etc but puts as little limit on the design as possible. I
suspect the difference between the three levels is purely one of design and
content limitation, however this is not clear.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 13:16:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC