RE: [171] accessible rebroadcasts

I'm not sure I understand this bit:
Maybe we can set the rule for some types at the required level and the
rest at best practice. 

Can you elaborate?

Thanks 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:34 PM
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; 'Web Content Guidelines'
Subject: RE: [171] accessible rebroadcasts


Hi 

I think we tried this in the past and it didn't work which is why we got
to where we are.
 
If I remember the thinking it went like

1- if we require something that cannot be done on all sites -- then
(besides violating our rule for required items) it would mean that that
site was unable to claim anything for WCAG.

2- if we solve item 1 by allowing people to just scope out of required
items if they don't feel they can follow them, then we won't really have
any
minimum.   

So we said that if we wanted to have any exceptions - that we would have
to
include them in the success criteria.   

Now countries can of course create their own exceptions on top of ours.
But if we wanted our symbol to mean anything -- it had to not allow
exceptions
(or scoping out of required provisions) itself.   Else everyone could
put
our logo on the front page and a link to a long page of discussion or
metadata that essentially walked around whatever they didn't pass on
particular pages.  Useful someday in metadata if they used it -- but
they could scope out of that too.  So then we have a page of text. 


PS   If governments scope out of our requirements, then they can not say
that they adopted our guidelines -- and neither can we.   If we set this
up
so that countries HAVE to put exceptions to our minimum criteria, then
we guarantee that they do not conform to the guidelines and  people who
pass could not use our seal.  

Only way they could use our seal is if we allow anyone to scope out and
still use our seal -- in which case we are back to point 2

So we came to the conclusion that we had to set a minimum.

Maybe we can set the rule for some types at the required level and the
rest at best practice. 

hmmmmmmmmmmm 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 11:25 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: [171] accessible rebroadcasts


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 18:26:43 UTC