Re: Conformance in WCAG 2.0

my to chime in...

i think there is merit that organized bodies will look to the WCAG for
guidance and will quote or at least reference us.  therefore i think we nned
to be certain to have a compliance matrix, whereby they can pick and chose.
my fear is when they reference it carte blanc without ryhme or reason.  i do
like wha the access board did in government, the picked what realistic to
achieve for a phased approach.

i agree that we need requirements first and then we can assign a priority.
i have always been concerned about the Priority versus confromance level,
but understand it.  personnally i prefer one system versus two.

as for ADA specifications, i know of none rather i beleive there is verbage
that describes the right of access   but here i would defer our honorable
friend cynthia waddell.  Section 508 of the Rehabiltation Act does have
draft requirements.  not sure if they are live yet.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: Conformance in WCAG 2.0


> At 3:24 PM -0500 12/15/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
> >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.
>
> I'm not sure if we have the same type of understanding of
> "compliance issues."
>
> >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.
>
> I don't agree here, so maybe this -is- the time to discuss the
> compliance schemes.
>
> >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.
>
> With all due respect to the people here, I think that directly comparing
> this to the ADA is going to lead us down the wrong path entirely.  ADA
> specifications and WCAG -guidelines- are different things, -and- are
> created in a far different manner than what we're doing here.
>
> I'm very worried that there is a huge disconnect between our process
> and our goals. I would bring this up to Judy and the WAI coordination
> group but I'm not sure they want to hear about more disorder in the
> WCAG group. :)
>
> Maybe I just have a different view of "guidelines".  If we are
> setting governmental specifications -- like the ADA specs -- then
> we really need a different name, _and_ a far different process than
> the one we have now.  I am not convinced that the current processes
> used in WCAG are appropriate for the type of legislation-style
> crafting of guidelines that you are proposing.
>
> --Kynn
>
> PS:  Can anyone point me to a good reference -- preferably on the
>       web -- that explains how ADA specifications are and were
>       drafted?  Is that really what we are doing here?  Does the
>       ADA process generally consist of allowing whatever people
>       who show up off the street write the guidelines?  (Near as I
>       can tell there are few restrictions on who joins the WCAG
>       working group.)
>
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
> http://www.kynn.com/
>
>

Received on Saturday, 16 December 2000 19:34:48 UTC