RE: Conformance in WCAG 2.0

I don't think it's resolved either.  I seem to remember the discussion being
tabled a couple of times, to be brought up after we had finished drafting
the guidelines.

I like Kynn's idea of coming up with requirements for the conformance docs.
Kynn, maybe you could take a crack at drafting that, and we could all hash
over it a bit?

-----Original Message-----
From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto:kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 9:20 PM
To: love26@gorge.net; Leonard R. Kasday; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 Monday, 18 December 2000 16:29:47 UTC