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

At 4:27 PM -0500 11/29/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>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"

Yes, and I feel that this is one of the _weaknesses_ of the WCAG 1.0
document.  (I'm sorry if I have to be critical of the holy writ, but
I have felt this for a long time.)

>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.

There are also no references to trade-offs for accessibility features,
too.  Different groups may require different accessibility considerations,
but these are pretty much ignored, including possible dichotomies.

>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.

I agree that if WAI doesn't consider the tradeoffs and suggest reasonable
methods which will be accepted by web designers, then someone else who
is not WAI will.  I would, if I had the extra time.

>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).

I don't think it's a new direction at all; I think it's merely part and
parcel of creating guidelines and of understanding our audience.

I do think, however, that if we want these to be Web Content
Accessibility Definitions instead of Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines, we need a name change and we need to publicly state
that WCAG should _not_ be used directly as an implementation
plan, something I have been saying myself for several years now.

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 17:37:58 UTC