- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 16:21:34 -0500 (EST)
- To: Peter Munro <disabled@tdbank.com>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
My responses interspersed - look for CMN: Peter Munro wrote: Issue 1 What happened to the rating system? I thought we discussed the a rating system. CMN: We did. As I recalled it, the consensus was that you could be P1 compliant, P12 compliant, or P123 compliant. Which is what the minutes said and what the document says. PM: If a site passes all priority 1 items it would have a P1 or A rating If a site passes all priority 1, and 2 items it would have a P2, or AA rating. If a site passes all priority 1, 2, and 3 items it would have P3, or AAA rating. I like the A rating system because it is used universally and is instantly understood that AAA is best and AA is second best, and A is third best. CMN: It might be well understood in North America, among credit rating agencies, and among woll-classers, but I am not sure that it is universal. To the extent that it is, I would not want to see a site which was barely accessible (P1) able to award itself a A rating. PM: If I was a site that concerned with marketing my site as being accessible I would want to be able to display an AAA rating or a P1 rating. 1 normal means first or best. The P1, P2, P3 rating system would be confusing to the public. The marketing people control the web site budget and to get them to put up the money to make sites accessible you have to give them the best bang for their buck. Most marketing people are only concerned with selling to the majority of the people, and are not concerned with selling to the disabled, just looking like they are accessible. ---------------------------- Issue 2 35.made color contrast a P2 rather than P1 CMN: To the extent that this can bo controlled bu the author, it needs to be covered in the Web Content Guidelines. Recommendations like CSS are used precisely because they allow this to happen. What browsers do is outside the scope of this document, although it is addressed by a whole working group of WAI - the User Agent Guidelines Working Group. PM: I guess I missed this last night. The CNIB (Canadian National Institute for the Blind) considers contrast to be the highest priority. From a discussion I just have with them, we suggest. That it be a priority 1 that web pages be allowed to be controled by the browser and images have high contrast. >From what I was told some java script does not allow the browser to control background and text and links. The reason for the browser to control the contrast is that different people have different requirements for colours. The best colours are not always black and white. ----------------------- Issue 3 Broke identify-changes into 2 checkpoints, identify-changes=p1, identify-lang=p3, Refer to the lanuage P3 from the P1. A quick reference be made from the P1 to mention the P3 lanugage rules. CMN: As a repair strategy, knowing a document is in a given language can be crucial. For example, a document sent over the web in Russian by an off-the-shelf server bought in France might easily be accompanied by incorrect HTP headers saying it is in French, using charset ISO-8859-1. Knowing it is in Russian is the only clue to try a charest which is applicable, such as KOI8-R or ISO-8859-5. I wait to hear what i18n say - they are the experts after all. PM: ---------------- Issue 4 Organize the guide to be by topics and by Priority. The document would have P1 items listed first P2 items listed second P3 items listed third In this way a web develper can learn how to make web sites accessible in order. In this way it will be easy for people to learn the most important items first. CMN: The checklist is organised in just this manner. In addition, the items are grouped according to features, to further improve the useability. PM: Some people may think that I am coming in at the end and making suggestions after much time has beeb spent on this document. My felling is that this is the LAST chance to make suggestions. It is like speak of forever hold your piece. Peter
Received on Saturday, 27 February 1999 16:21:40 UTC