Objective checkpoints RE: Checkpoint on testability

I want to write up the technical requirements for making content accessible
to people. This can be used by people who have to implement "accessibility"
as a base resource.

I don't really care what it is called. I am also prepared to accept that some
of the testing of accesibility will ultimately be subjective in nature.

 Here's why...

Objectivity is also a subjective concept - this is what schools full of
people learn when they study "post-modernism", various philosophical ideas,
journalism, etc. (Also, people who learn serious amounts of physics,
chemistry, etc.)

Also, remember that the 508 rules only cover one nation, of about 280 million
people. The European Union, in its e-Europe intiative, committed to WCAG
level double-A (as I recall), for a number of governments/nations, covering
at least as many people. The Australian government requires that sites do not
discriminate against people because of their disabilities, and suggests that
WCAG provides the best available information on how to avoid doing so. THe
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines require a reference for what is
required to produce content that is accessible - they currently use WCAG.

(which in total means we are talking about something like 10% of the world
in all the examples I have given)

In other words, there are many different consumers of a list of technical
requirements. Each will potentially use them differently, and make their own,
informed (or otherwise) decisions on what is too hard in "the current
situtation.

Charles McCN

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Bailey, Bruce wrote:

  Keep in mind that the stated reason the 508 rules did not embrace more of
  the WCAG 1.0 P1 checkpoints is that they were not objective (i.e., testable)
  enough.

  Do we want to write "guidelines" or "standards"?  Do we need to choose?

  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
  > Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
  > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 8:51 AM
  > To: Kynn Bartlett
  > Cc: Leonard R. Kasday; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  > Subject: Re: Checkpoint on testability
  >
  >
  > I think I agree with Kynn - being testable doesn't seem to me to
  > automatically enhance accessibility. (But explaining
  > accessibility features
  > of the site and how to use them probably does - I'll add that
  > to my  list of
  > emails to send...)
  >
  > However, it is a useful feature. It may also be an intersting
  > issue for the
  > Authoring Tool Guidelines, at least as a possible extra feature, or a
  > technique that would be nice to have.
  >
  > cheers
  >
  > Charles McCN


-- 
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
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Saturday, 23 December 2000 10:22:38 UTC