Re: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts

I agree with G-4 (user vs user)

I disagree with the proposed G-3

The proposed G-3 is stating that we agree that the existing WCAG 1.0
checkpoint 11.4 is about right.

If the Author is trying to do something where the functionality cannot meet
every checkpoint, then they are not going to be able to conform to a set of
requirements that is about universal accesssibility, unless we allow for them
to declare that a requirement is not applicable givne the functionality they
are trying to provide. We would have to be very clear about how to decide
what kind of functionalities it is resonable to suggest are necessary for
some application even if they are not going to be accessible, and what kind
of funcitonalities can be provided in a different, accessible form.

If the functionality genuinely can't be provided in accessible form then
there is probable not much point having "almost the same thing" and claiming
that is an accessible version.

However, we should strongly encourage authors in this situation to conform to
all the checkpoints they can, in order to ensure the widest possible range of
users.

This is really just an extension of what we have already agreed about how to
deal with the fact that we may be unable to provide guidelines that cover
accessibility for all authors.

cheers

Chaals

  G-3.	Where Author and User needs conflict such that the Author cannot
  meet the User needs, then an alternate form which is accessible needs to
  be provided that is as close to the original functionality as is
  technically possible.

Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 12:42:27 UTC