- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:29:58 -0400
- To: 3WC WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "'love26@gorge.net'" <love26@gorge.net>
- Message-ID: <5DCA49BDD2B0D41186CE00508B6BEBD0022DAF26@wdcrobexc01.ed.gov>
William recently wrote: > We so often speak of "requirements" that we forget who we are - > recommenders, not regulators. I no longer have any doubt that we should > (strongly?) *recommend* that all the marvelous features of the > communicative process be used, with proper options for the user to decide > which to ignore/utilize/modify. When this is too great a burden on a > designer they simply won't "comply" but that's up to some complex social > contract to allow/prohibit. I respectfully disagree, but I acknowledge that is probably due to how the Section 508 Standards have changed my thinking. As I understand it, we have consciously decided that the WCAG is "guidelines" and that we are, in fact, working on "best practices" document. I suggest that this may be something of a "cop out". The term "guideline" -- the G in WCAG after all -- was mostly due to the fact the WAI (and the W3C for that matter) has absolutely no enforcement powers whatsoever. We could call them "standards" (WCAS?) -- or even requirements -- but such verbiage would be meaningless. The W3C HTML "specifications" falls under the category "technical recommendations". (Still no use of the words "requirements" or "standards".) The WCAG (1 and 2) includes a number of nebulous items which are import, but hard to fully delineate. As unenforceable theoretical "guidelines" this is acceptable. I would like to suggest that this may be cavalier laziness (or perhaps merely wishful thinking) on our part, although it does allow us to compose a broader document (which mitigates against the laziness argument). We have seen some bodies adopt the WCAG as "standards" -- at least as policy -- on the P1 or P2 level. Presumably, the organizations involved include some enforcement and remediation mechanisms. When the WAI got the chance, Judy and Gregg (and others I am sure) advocated that all WCAG P2 items be incorporated, verbatim, into the 508 standards. This, I think, would have been a legal disaster if it had occurred! At the very least, these real life examples illustrate that we should be mindful of the potential powerful implications of our "recommendations". I suggest that our work will be much more influential if we aim for "requirements" instead "recommendations" and "standards" instead of "guidelines". -- Bruce
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2001 11:30:32 UTC