- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:02:10 -0700
- To: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> > I agree with Gregg: whenever I read a statement to the effect that such > and such is "accessible", the questions that always come to mind are: "to > whom?", "under what circumstances?" This is what I was thinking when I said previously that adopters are seeking something that is "capital-A Accessible." My experience is that people seeking accessibility enhancements actually envision accessibility as something tangible, as if it were a standard that is simple to validate. When we say that our goal is "more accessible" rather than "accessible" content, though, the levels we set for compliance become all the more important, particularly to those who identify accessible in the way I described. I think that we should put a great deal of effort into explaining the concept to stakeholders, for fear that they may have considered WCAG 1 to be safe harbor (that is, "I have complied with these checkpoints, and thus my content is Accessible"), and may consider WCAG 2 to be a step backwards in terms of presenting their content as accessible. - m
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 23:02:44 UTC