- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:24:39 +1000
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Here is an alternative solution intended to cover this and other cases. Proposal: 1. Recognizing that this working group is not in a position to weigh in balance the many factors that influence policy decisions regarding what content is required to be accessible, and under which circumstances, we should state the checkpoints without qualification. That is, for checkpoints 1.1 and 1.2, content does not conform to the guidelines unless it has associated captions and descriptions. 2. We should allow the scope of a conformance claim to be defined flexibly. Thus, if it is decided on policy grounds that certain content doesn't need to meet the guidelines, then, under the circumstances defined in the policy, the developer should be able to exclude that content, and only that content, from the scope of a conformance claim. 3. We could, if desired, introduce statements into the guidelines explaining that various factors may make it impracticable or undesirable for all content to conform to the guidelines under all circumstances, and that policy makers may opt to allow exclusions, but this can only be done by exempting certain content from the scope of the conformance claim, and not by claiming conformance with respect to content that only satisfies a subset of the core checkpoints. This of course leaves open the possibility that the exempted content may happen to conform to some other set of guidelines or standard, for example that of the television industry in the case of rebroadcast multimedia - in which circumstances a conformance claim to that effect could be made, but not a WCAG 2.0 conformance claim. 4. I don't think this is necessary, but we could also include non-normative notes at certain points in the document, directed at policy setters (whether they be governments or internal policy bodies within an organization) indicating why we think there may be difficulties in applying certain checkpoints universally, that is, under all circumstances, and giving examples of possible problems. By being non-normative, these statements would call attention to the issue without making a policy decision that affects conformance.
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 04:24:46 UTC