- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:40:50 +1000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
In the discussion of scope, two options are under consideration for each success criterion to which the issue applies: 1. Providing no explicit exceptions, but offering guidance (perhaps in a document for policy making) on what content should be excluded from the scope of conformance claims, under specific circumstances. One consequence of this approach is that the content which is deemed to be out of scope, need not conform to any other success criteria at the relevant level. For example, if it is decided that certain content should not be required to meet a certain success criterion at level 2 and is therefore out of scope for a level 2 claim, then the excluded content need not meet any other level 2 success criteria either. At level 1 this means that the excluded content need not conform to any of the guidelines (i.e., it is not covered by any conformance claim at all). I think this all-or-nothing outcome is an inevitable consequence of having minimum conformance requirements, but that developers should still be encouraged to meet as many success criteria as they can even in content that doesn't satisfy the minimum. 2. Introducing qualifications and exceptions to restrict the application of individual success criteria, often on policy-oriented grounds. I don't like this approach for several reasons: a. It complicates the guidelines by adding detailed exceptions and qualifications to individual success criteria. b. It runs the risk of entering into the field of policy-making, exceeding the technical role of the working group and creating additional controversy. c. It runs the risk of creating exceptions that are too narrow or too broad and which operate in undesirable and unanticipated ways in situations that haven't been foreseen. d. It allows content to conform without achieving the minimum level of accessibility that would otherwise be prescribed by the guidelines, i.e., it allows misleading conformance claims to be made which cover content that isn't accessible in those respects for which the level 1 success criteria provide. I would very much like the qualifications and exceptions, especially those related to matters that are considered to be a lot of work or otherwise undesirable on policy grounds, to be separated out of the guidelines and dealt with in other ways, for example scoping or any other mechanism that may be agreed upon.
Received on Thursday, 17 June 2004 07:40:55 UTC