- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:10:02 -0700
- To: Jens Meiert <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
- Cc: "Chris Brainerd" <Chris.Brainerd@cds.hawaii.edu>, chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca, charles@w3.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 12:00 AM, Jens Meiert wrote: > >> Not to be trite, but it appears to me that if an author wants to >> invoke >> personal preference that they simply not conform to WCAG. To be even >> more trite, the author may state "This site does not conform to WCAG >> because the author feels artistic freedom is more important than >> accessibility." > > That sounds that blanket -- when creating Web sites, I observe several > things to be arranged. On the one hand, I want to create valid markup, > on the > other hand, I want to create accessible and usable pages, and I want > to create > pages usable in almost all browsers. The question is whether or not the guidelines provide a normative conformance scheme (as WCAG 1.0 does) or if they provide specific sample conformance schemes (which can be structured to parallel WCAG 1.0 A/AA/AAA if desired) as examples of using WCAG 2.0 as a toolkit for building accessibility policies. I have long advocated the latter approach. The process of developing an accessibility policy is very different from the process of creating an accessible Web site. WCAG 2.0 should be a toolkit for doing so, in a way that is interoperable and standardized, to prevent situations like the case of Section 508. (In other words, you should be able to "build" a policy approximating 508 by selecting portions of WCAG 2.0. This will likely be much different from the "default" conformance schemes.) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Author, CSS in 24 Hours http://cssin24hours.com Inland Anti-Empire Blog http://blog.kynn.com/iae Shock & Awe Blog http://blog.kynn.com/shock
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2003 01:16:15 UTC