- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 10:32:29 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Bruce, I am still struggling at preparing a list of accommodations for the learning and cognitively disabled population. Not many people have been looking for accessibility for those groups specifically. Since this person says that's his purpose, I would like to see what he/she has done towards that end. Please post the URL for the site, or if you prefer, send it to me private e-mail. Thanks, Anne At 10:09 AM 7/22/1999 -0400, Bruce Bailey wrote: >Allow me to quote from an email sent by contractor defending his work after >I critiqued his horribly inaccessible site. Mind you, this vendor >understands that accessibility is an issue. My main point in posting this >here is to provide hearsay evidence that vendors will try and use WCAG as a >"Chinese menu" -- picking and choosing among what they want. And this is >with the current WCAG. Charles' observations are quite on the mark. We >don't dare weaken the A/AA/AAA levels! > >The names will remain anonymous to protect the guilty... > >> There is nothing in these guidelines which prevent having an alternate >> site. In fact, it is encouraged. The W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility >> Guidelines themselves explicitly tell developers to create an alternate >> page when the current page doesn't "transform" well. As it stands, >> our site meets a large number of the priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints >> outlined in the guidelines. Also, the graphics version is needed to >> satisfy the requirements regarding people with learning disabilities to >> help them associate ideas. The text only version designed for blind >users >> might violate their rights. > >I have written back saying that "required as a last resort" is more >accurate than "encouraged" and that it does not matter how many Priority 2 >and 3 checkpoints are addressed if even ONE Priority 1 checkpoint is >missed, the site will remain inaccessible. > >Actually I went on in detail about a number of points. This particular >work in progress is in real trouble because the vendor is generating the >"text-only parallel version" (yes, I have emphasized that this approach is >misguided) from a Java applet! My main goal has been getting them to >understand that EVERYTHING they do with Java, by definition -- and >including the text-only pages, is not accessible! [heavy sigh...] > > >On Wednesday, July 21, 1999 9:37 PM, Charles McCathieNevile >[SMTP:charles@w3.org] wrote: >> It seems to me that there is nothing to stop developers claiming partial >> conformance in any way they want, but the actual conformance section of >the >> document says effectively that the group thinks there are three different >> types of conformance, which signal three different levels of >accessibility, >> and do not offer any official recognition for any other type of claim. >> >> Effectively this allows the developers of web content to say all manner >of >> things about what they have done to improve the accessibility of their >web >> content, and to say that they claim to have attained (or exceeded) a >> particular level of accessibility according to the WCAG 1.0 out of a >small >> number of possible levels. Having a very small number of possible levels, >> with simple natural descriptions of what they mean, allows for a much >easier >> comparison and requirement setting than having to weigh the relative >value of >> each checkpoint against each other. >> >> Which seems to me a good argument for leaving the status quo alone. >> >> Charles McCN > > Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 22 July 1999 11:33:56 UTC