- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:28:48 +1000
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
gian@stanleymilford.com.au writes: > User Related Requirements (URR) > [or as I like to call it TUIK - The User Is King ; ) ] > > The minimum set for compliance (equivalent to single A) would be > composed of those items without which a user could not be reasonably > expected to access the content and functionality of the site, due to > restrictions such as disabilities or technical environments. Can you improve on this formulation? What is meant by "access"? What factors should and should not be taken into account in determining whether a user can be reasonably expected to access the content? Shouldn't the requirement be formulated in terms of groups rather than individual users, because individuals can (due to lack of familiarity with relevant software or other circumstances) be unable to access material which they could access given appropriate training or assistance. I suspect the proposed criterion is fundamentally question begging in so far as it doesn't provide a clear basis on which to decide what should be included in the minimum. The WCAG definition of priority 1, in effect, includes only those requirements which, if not met, will render the content completely inaccessible to certain groups of users on account of disability. The notion of impossibility here was taken strictly--that is, if a tool could overcome the barrier then the checkpoint qualified as priority 2 rather than priority 1. This is why issues such as table linearization arising from HTML, were dealt with by priority 2 checkpoints in WCAG 1.0.
Received on Saturday, 27 October 2001 01:28:57 UTC