- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@Trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 22:33:17 -0500
- To: "GL - WAI Guidelines WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The misunderstanding of the Definition of REQUIRED comes up a lot on this list so I thought I would put it out as a separate memo rather than buried with another topic. When we dropped to just two ratings - we looked at lots of options and came up with REQUIRED and RECOMMENDED. Perhaps they are not well chosen but here is how we came on them 1) The guidelines are just that, Guidelines, not requirements. There is no certification of sites as accessible etc. Therefore we cannot have REQUIRED guidelines. W3C does not have the authority to require anything as I understand it. But we could say that doing this or that was required for some users to be able to use the pages. So that is what we did. So the definition of Required is [Required] Required, otherwise it will be impossible for one or more groups of users to understand the page. 2) We then just used recommended for the second level - those things that would make the page easier to use but are not required to make the information accessible. [Recommended] Makes page easier to understand and use. We have asked for comment on these definitions - but have not gotten any that suggest other definitions or approaches. So we have continued with this. (We dropped from 4 to 2 levels after recommendations at the GL group meeting in Texas) Sooooooo Required does not mean that we require it. It means that it is a fact that it is required if all users are to be able to access the information on the page and understand it. All other recommendations go into the recommended category, even if we think they are very important. As always, comments on other ways to approach this are welcome. I think we need to have a factual base though for putting things into the required category since we don't really have a mandate for arbitrarily requiring things of web authors and we don't have a certification process in place. RC group is looking at these aspects. Having said all this, I will say that this whole aspect is a bit murky. If you try to apply things absolutely strictly you quickly end up with lots of things that could go either way based on interpretation. So let us know what you think. Do these seem to work (mostly)? Or is there a better approach. Thanks Much Gregg For the Editors/Chairs
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 1998 23:36:14 UTC