Re: Conformance in WCAG 2.0

If we postpone the discussion of compliance, we have to make absolutely 
sure that we keep compliance issues out of the discussion until 
then.  Based on what I heard on the last call, I believe we are, but I'm 
writing this just to make sure we all have the same understanding.

For example, even though we need to consider at some point how hard it is 
for web site designers to follow certain guidelines, and how acceptable 
they will be to designers, these considerations must have absolutely no 
explicit or implict influence on Guidelines, or on Techniques.  We have to 
put all that into the compliance rules.

It's just like ADA.  When you're describing how hard it is for someone to 
get up a ramp, it's irrelevant how difficult or historically aesthetic it 
is to construct the ramp.    Difficulty of construction and historic 
aesthetics only enters when you're determining compliance rules for 
building the ramp.

Len


At 09:20 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>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/

--
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, 15 December 2000 15:27:25 UTC