Re: General Exception for Essential Purpose

Hi William,

First of all, even if you don't want to see the essential purpose clause 
written into the guidelines, do you think it's useful guide for us to use 
internally to create the exception tables you recommend?

Also, please keep in mind that even when this "exception" applies, the 
author still has to provide an alternative version of the page that 
strictly follows the guideline, e.g. pure text in the icicle example.  And 
if the exception doesn't apply, then even an alternative version doesn't 
suffice.

So this "exception" is really a restriction in disguise: it says there are 
cases where you can't get away with an alternative page.  I anticipate this 
will draw objections from people who, rather than thinking this clause is 
too lenient, will think it is too restrictive.    I don't know if it will 
soften your objections however.

At any rate, WCAG 1.0 had a guideline 11.4 on alternative accessible pages 
that were allowed after the author made "best efforts".  If we import that 
into WCAG 2.0, how will we word it?

Len

At 03:38 AM 10/27/00 -0700, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 06:21 AM 10/27/00 -0400, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>>chilly font doesn't support the essential purpose of the page
>
>And who decides that this is the case. I could well argue that the 
>"essential purpose" of this page is to prevent citizens from venturing 
>forth in bad weather and that it has been found that this particular means 
>of reminding them of that is the difference between them (particularly 
>those of advancing years) noticing that it's going to be cold and getting 
>frostbite because you didn't have those "nice icicly" letters.
>
>I think the guidelines need to be as absolute as other "laws" like the 
>Mosaic tables. There need to be "exception tables" in the explanatory 
>materials much as "if the only available food is milk-boiled mutton, the 
>concern for life trumps the dietary laws."
>
>I think it is an absolute rule that you must not use "text-as-text" in 
>graphics format. Exceptions are obviously going to be taken, but not 
>without consequence, including failure to meet some conformance level. If 
>this leads to someone questioning why the "icicle font" presence didn't 
>preclude the author's claim of AAA conformance the ensuing hearing/trial 
>would get to decide if the author was reasonable in deciding to: use the 
>font; claim conformance because of a "reasonable exception".
>
>We are able to be "draconian" in our requirements/recommendations because 
>it is quite clear from our statement about conformance: "Content providers 
>are solely responsible for the use of these logos". If a designer can 
>claim AAA conformance in good conscience then only some arbitrator 
>(probably armed with "case law" and the "exception table") can decide if 
>the claim is justified.
>
>We need not temporize in these matters so long as we try to clarify what 
>are permitted "exceptions".
>
>--
>Love.
>                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>

--
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
University
(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org

Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/

The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Received on Friday, 27 October 2000 11:26:36 UTC