Re: Conformance in WCAG 2.0

No, I don't think the issue is closed, but I agree that we could let it lie
for a while and do the "primary work" of providing something for which people
might want a conformance scheme <grin>.

As I understood it we were going to provide more inforamtion on teh
applicability of various proposals for things to be done - who benefits, what
technology is needed/served. And then think about how to measure conformacne
afterwards.

chaals

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, 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



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 11:16:25 UTC