Re: A PROPOSAL TO SPLIT THE WCAG IN THREE. Please read this. I'm serious.

At 4:30 AM -0700 2001/8/20, Charles F. Munat wrote:
>The only detriments I see are these:
>
>1. It takes longer to get the comprehensibility guidelines out.
>2. Without the "accessibility" angle, comprehensibility might lose some
>leverage. Solution: Define accessibility twice (as we already have, I
>think). GENERAL accessibility includes SPECIFIC accessibility, navigability,
>and comprehensibility.

There's still a danger of confusion (what do I follow? which is which?)
and it will create a sense that despite the intro/disclaimer, "these
things" are different from "these things".  Compliance might be hard
to track -- once separated out, it's easy to claim compliance to WCAG
but not to Comprehension especially if you can (incorrectly) justify
your site as being "exempt" (and a lot people DO feel that way, in
effect saying "I don't write for people who can't think right".)

Those are additional potential detriments.  This is not saying the idea
is a bad one.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
________________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
________________________________________
http://www.reef.com

Received on Monday, 20 August 2001 11:58:30 UTC