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

When people ask my advice, here's what I'm going to say (e.g. next Tuesday):

1. Determine the essential purpose of your site.

2. If you want to do something that compromises accessibility ask yourself: 
is this important for the essential purpose?

     a. If it is important for the underlying purpose, use it, but provide 
a accessible alternative if at all feasible.
     b. If not important for the underlying purpose, don't use it.

--
     Then if, for example, someone wants to use a special font which can 
presently only be rendered via pixel graphics, I would hope that people 
providing a bus schedule would realize that the special font wasn't 
needed  (I'd also encourage them to add a picture of a bus however).

  On the other hand people providing a children's reading book 
could  appropriately choose to have letters formed  from cavorting animals.
--
People in the US will I think find this resonates with ADA.
--

I'd prefer to have this advice (or better worded advice) come from the WAI, 
so we retain a single, unified point of contact for accessibility 
recommendations.   But if it doesn't, I hope it finds an authoritative home 
elsewhere.

Len

At 05:35 PM 11/29/00 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>The issue is that a policy comes out that says, "use WCAG" but then 
>someone goes to use it (e.g. Len) and comes up with a question like "if I 
>use text in a raster image can I claim double A conformance to WCAG." When 
>WCAG WG is asked the question, we can't agree on how to interpret it 
>(although I thought we had been really close a couple times).  If we have 
>multiple interpretations, imagine what is happening elsewhere.  How are 
>the people who aren't asking for an interpretation designing content?  How 
>are they interpreting our work?
>
>In the requirements for WCAG 2.0 we state,
><blockquote>
>2. Ensure that the minimal conformance requirements are clear
>WCAG 2.0 must clearly specify the minimal requirements necessary for 
>conformance. Each requirement must be easily verifiable. The WG will 
>provide resources to help readers evaluate conformance, such as 
>technology-specific checklists, sample sites, sample renderings (aural as 
>well as graphical), and processes for determining conformance (e.g., in 
>conjunction with the ERT and EO WGs).
>The deliverables must:
>·       Distinguish what is required for conformance from what provides 
>additional accessibility.
>·       Clearly specify how content that is tailored according to client 
>or user capabilities may conform (dynamic content or database driven).
>·       Resolve the relationship between user agent support and author 
>supplied content (cross-platform and backwards compatibility issues).
>·       Document the assumptions that underly the minimum requirements.
></blockquote>
>
>We have discussed "technology-specific checkpoints."  I believe these are 
>attempts to address these issues.  Part of the problem is tools and 
>testing methods.  If people can experience the difficulties that people 
>with disabilities experience, they are less likely to design inaccessible 
>content.  If we can give them tools that will show them how badly a raster 
>image magnifies, perhaps they will be less likely to use them.  But, then 
>we need to be prepared to tell them what to do instead.  In the end, 
>however it is up to the designer.  We can give them information but we can 
>not make decisions for them.
>
>--wendy
>
>At 05:11 PM 11/29/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>As I understand the work of this group, it is to develop a technical
>>reference which outlines the requirements for content to make it accessible.
>>
>>I do not think this group should attempt to describe the state of the art of
>>accessibility in technology around the world, cost it out, and then determine
>>that we know what makes sense for exception cases.
>>
>>It is not the remit of this group (or any W3C group) to determine what
>>particular people who have to design web pages for a living actually do. In
>>some cases, this document is used by governments or purchasers who say "Do
>>what is in this document, because that defines accessibility". In other cases
>>(for example the Australian government, and the Australian Human Rights and
>>Equal Opportunities Commission) they say "Make the site accessible. The WCAG
>>specification tells you what you need to know, better than anything else, so
>>that is a good palce to start".
>>
>>If we try to determine what we think are acceptable exception cases, then we
>>will not have a reference for what makes content accessible, beyond WCAG 1.0,
>>and I think that would be a shame. It is also a disservice to the communities
>>we are trying to serve.
>>
>>At the Web Accessibility Summit held in Australia recently, co-sponsored by
>>the W3C Australian Office, the Deputy Commissioner for Human Rights
>>(disability), Graham Innes, said that the Commission's view was simple: use
>>the WCAG guidelines.
>>
>>In response to a specific question about whether this was a guarantee that
>>you would not be discriminating, he said that it was not a guarantee, it was
>>simply the best advice the Commission had about what to do to ensure
>>accessibility. If a site that was triple-A was not accessible to someone, and
>>could be made so, the commission would normally order the changes to be made
>>(like many such bodies, the commission exempts certain cases on the basis
>>that it would pose an unreasonable hardship to comply). Likewise, it is not
>>possible to proceed against a site becuase it does not meet WCAG, it is
>>necessary to show that there is an actual problem.
>>
>>This is what I consider a good use of the guidelines in a legal or paralegal
>>situation. The fact that the people who have actually gone to the extent of
>>handing down a finding consider that the WCAG is the best reference available
>>suggests to me that we are on the right track.
>>
>>Charles McCN
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, 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"
>>
>>   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.
>
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>madison, wi usa
>tel: +1 608 663 6346
>/--

--
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 Thursday, 30 November 2000 09:19:33 UTC