- From: Masafumi NAKANE <max@wide.ad.jp>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 12:46:37 +0900
- To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------- > Comment 1: Several Success Criteria include specific values > Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Feb/0033.html > (Issue ID: 2485) > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED > ---------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > The values in the success criteria are based on both research and > clinical input that has been gathered over a long period. In order for WCAG 2.0 to be presented with credibility to broad readers, I believe it is essential to include references to paper/report/etc. which introduces such researches and clinical experiences to support these values. While these values may be considered as common sense by accessibility experts, readers from different fields may not look at them as such, and it is important that there are external document which they can refer to. Otherwise, non-accessibility experts would not be able to know how credible or stable these values are. > If future research indicates different values, they would be changed > in a revision or future version of WCAG. I personally get an impression that there is a strong commitment and hard work for WCAG 2.0 to be stable, and that it would not require revisions for a long period of time. Besides that, the fact that there have been almost ten years inbetween two revisions of WCAG can cause such an impression that WCAG is not to be revised for minor changes. If readers who are not certain about the stability and credibility of these values get such an impression, that could cause negative impression on the credibility of the whole document. Therefor, if these values are to be kept in the normative part of the document, there must be references that give strong support to them. Masafumi NAKANE
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2008 03:47:17 UTC