Re: Conformance in WCAG 2.0

I agree with William that there are currently more important issues,
but I am not 100% convinced that the issue has been resolved.  Maybe
I'm just a stubborn old cuss (god, think what I will be like when I
am William's age!), but I think the issue is not yet closed.

But I will second the idea of worrying about some of the more
topical issues -- by which I mean issues directly relating to
accessibility of content -- rather than spending too much time on
this "meta-issue".

--Kynn

At 7:32 PM -0800 12/14/00, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 06:27 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>I continue to have very strong objections to the current Single-A, 
>>Double-A, Triple-A conformance scheme...I don't believe we have 
>>gotten to this issue at all yet"
>
>I join Kynn in the first clause and can't believe he stated the last 
>one. This issue pre-dates the WG and possibly even the WAI. We have 
>"gotten to" it boringly often. We took a vote and I lost.  Kynn did 
>too if he voted.
>
>At this time I'd rather discuss/argue/decide/consense/read/write 
>about something else. We lost that election and it's not important 
>enough to be a "deal breaker" that we have a multi-tiered system in 
>which there's "priority levels" with which I disagree.
>
>Let's make the document better and defer yet another round of 
>campaigning/voting about conformance levels until a bit later. I 
>hope Kynn can get some people to vote different but it's more 
>important that we get into stuff like specifying "density levels" 
>for the clear/simple stuff and "appropriate to the task" reading 
>levels and proof of the use of non-text graphics to make stuff less 
>daunting and how a multimedia player/editor/creator can be specified 
>without the inevitability of a major retrofit next year.
>
>--
>Love.
>                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

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

Received on Friday, 15 December 2000 00:27:20 UTC