Should we consider factors other than accessibility [was Textual Images vs. Styled Text

Shades of meaning aside, this is an issue we need to face head on.

WCAG 1 priorities, and therefore compliance, are based explictly only on 
accessibility:  P1, P2, P3, correspond to whether

      "one or more groups will find it impossible/difficult/somewhat 
difficult to access information in the document"

There is no explicit refererence to any perceived or real tradeoffs against 
non-accessibility factors that this involves, although   some folks have 
read implicit references into some guidelines.

As I understand it this was a considered, deliberate decision for WCAG 1.0, 
and I agree that we need to have such a standard, one that only deals with 
accessibility.

However, I also agree (with e.g. Kynn) that these tradeoffs have to be 
explicitly considered _somewhere_ . If WAI doesn't consider the tradeoffs, 
someone else will, and we may not like what they come up with.

Do we want to consider the tradeoffs here in GL?  If not then indeed, its a 
WAI coordination group issue.

(Hmmm, actually, even if we do want to consider it in GL, we'd want to talk 
about it in CG if it's a new direction).

Len
p.s.
This is "General Exception for Specific Purpose" redux
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000OctDec/0334.html
where I argued that the tradeoff should be against the essential purpose of 
the site, in analogy with ADA.


At 04:42 PM 11/28/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 4:07 PM -0500 11/28/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>>Well put William.
>>In other words, WCAG does not say what web designers or owners have to do.
>>It only says what's accessible.   That's what the definitions of Priority 
>>1, 2, 3 are.  Difficulty of making something accessible may be relevant 
>>when people decide if they are going to make it accessible, but it isn't 
>>relevant to the question of whether is accessible or not.
>
>Then these aren't "guidelines" and the name needs to be changed.
>
>A guideline tells what to do, when to do it, and why to do it.  A
>"definition of accessibility" simply defines whether or not something
>is accessible.
>
>It's clear that many people on this working group want to write
>accessibility definitions and not write guidelines.  Therefore, I
>suggest that WCAG be rechartered and redefined, and clearly state
>that the W3C has no intent to issue _guidelines_.  That way other
>groups can pick up the slack where WCAG and WAI has failed.
>
>How do I propose this to the WAI coordination group?
>
>--Kynn
>--
>Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
>http://www.kynn.com/

--
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 Wednesday, 29 November 2000 16:28:12 UTC