W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: AAA Conformance of WCAG 1.0?

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:18:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908241103430.5830-100000@tux.w3.org>
I think there is truth in the suggestion that an all-text document may not be
completely accessible, if comprehension can be facilitated with non-textual
illustration. Some concrete examples are the proposed SMIL accessibility
note, which coul really use some flowchart diagrams. I am personally loath to
claim anything as triple-A compliant unless I am very sure that it is clearly
written, appropriately illustrated, and everything else has been exhaustively

This is the effect of 14.2 on me. Whether the "out" offered is easy or not
depends on the context - this is about as it should be, in my humble opinion.

Charles McCN

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, William Loughborough wrote:

   14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory 
          presentations where they will facilitate
          comprehension of the page. [Priority 3] 
  IJ:: "This seems to mean that an all-text document...cannot conform at
  Level Triple-A."
  The decision as to what qualifies as "where they will facilitate" is an
  easy exit for this since so many on this list and IG have made it clear
  that in their humble opinions the addition of graphic or auditory
  presentations not only will not facilitate, but in fact inhibit
  No matter how deplorable it may be that non-readers are shut out of
  access to text, until something more than "wouldn't it be nice if..."
  shows up, things like 14.2 can have no effect: i.e. *what* graphics,
  etc. will actually be useful? The problem of pinning down what colors
  are "effective" is a trivial problem compared to which illustrations are
  in fact illustrative and the color debate rages on.
  Triple-A in this case is in the mind of the author since the trial judge
  would be hard put to argue that the GL home page would demonstrably
  improve with the addition of illustrations in the face of opposing views
  claiming that they interfere with usability.

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 1999 11:18:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:16 UTC