RE: Checklists Normative?

Hi Joe

I didn't say that we wouldn't judge something as passing that DID only work
with one combination.  I said that that was not a suitable criteria for
passing.   

We could judge something as passing because it was the proper and coming way
to do it - and it will be widespread -- and is widely accessible now.   

But it would be because we judged that it should be considered as passing.
Not because there was 'one' combination.

In the end, it always comes down to judgment as to where to set the lines.
The lines then become objective.  But where to set the lines is rarely
(though sometimes) black and white.

I should have been clearer.
 
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 Joe Clark
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:17 PM
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Re: Checklists Normative?


> On the other hand, saying that something is accessible because it will
work
> on just one OS and with one piece of AT is also not appropriate.

That rules out absolutely *anything* WCAG WG wants to custom-craft for
Jaws and IE. Remember that when you spend hours dicking around with
remixable link and heading lists.

Anyway, somebody's gotta be the leader in supporting a feature.  Let's
take an hypothetical scenario with a real-world basis. Arguably only one
browser supports CSS3 text-shadow, and that is Safari. (Theoretically any
KDE engine could do so; that could include OmniWeb.) If we decided
text-shadow were necessary for accessibility-- this is an hypothetical
scenario here; work with me-- would we ban it just because only Safari
could handle it?

--

  Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
  Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
  <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>

Received on Sunday, 25 January 2004 17:36:39 UTC