- From: Neff, Robert <Robert.Neff@usmint.treas.gov>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:45:27 -0400
- To: "WAI - EO (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Jason White'" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
I think it is time to basically agree to disagree. You can build the best guideline in the world, but if it does not have support from the user audience that will need implement this, then you have accomplished very little. This guideline must have the ability to be implemented and if technology and web developer support is not there, then the expectations are unrealistic. Checkpoint 3.3 as it stands is unrealistic. One cannot rely on organizations or governments to implement as based upon specific needs. People who decide and make policy are normally out the loop with the technical skill sets of the community. We need a guideline that can be readily implemented without reference to what organizations or governments will or will not do. Laos, if we can't call this a specification, then how about STANDARD. I have seen STANDARD on the W3C site. rob -----Original Message----- From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU] Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 3:27 AM To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Subject: Re: Checkpoint 3.3 Unfortunately, Robert's response adds no substance to his arguments, and nor does it address any of the objections which I raised against his position. He also fails to separate the question of government policy from the issue of what the guidelines do and should require. I don't agree that the non-implementation of CSS is so severe as to preclude its widespread deployment; nor do I consider the implementation difficulties to be unduly onorous. Moreover, the issue of what to implement, and how quickly, is not addressed by the guidelines and is a question of government and organisational policy. The guidelines simply orient their r priority levels based on impact (the definitions of the three priority levels as stated in the document), and provide three conformance levels as convenient labels by which to claim compliance with different sets of priorities. It is for organisations, and governments, to decide, based on the guidelines and any other pertinent information, what should be implemented, on which web sites, and how quickly, in order to satisfy legal tests of non-discrimination and progressively to ensure that all web sites are equally accessible irrespective of disability. It is not the task of the guidelines to make such decisions, but only to provide the best available technical advice, based on the criteria set forth within the document itself, of what is required in order to ensure genuine accessibility, and the severity of non-compliance with particular requirements.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 1999 12:46:21 UTC