- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 12:48:48 +1000 (EST)
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
For the most part I agree with John's responses to the comments received on guideline 3.1. I have commented before on a number of the proposed success criteria, and John recognizes that there are still unresolved issues, for example how to reconcile the "measure of educational level" requirement with the fact that WCAG can't impose reporting obligations on implementors for legal and policy reasons. It is also true that the educational levels specified in the l2 success criteria are somewhat arbitrary. John suggests this could be dealt with by requiring the educational level of the content to be reduced by a certan percentage (say 30%) at level 2, and even more (say 50%) at level 3. While this is a move in the right direction to the extent that it seeks to eliminate the arbitrary numbers, it doesn't work, for a rather fundamental reason. Suppose I draft a document and measure its educational level. However readable I have made it, and however successful I have been, I still in principle can't satisfy a reduction requirement, for it demands that I reduce the reading level by antoehr 30%, whatever it is currently. Now if I reduce the required educational level of the content by 30% and re-evaluate, I again fail the requirement and have to reduce it again, and on it goes - an "infinite regress" as we call it in philosophy. If we require instead that the level must be reduced by 30% in comparison with the first draft, then I can render the requirement moot by doing a particularly bad job in writing a readable first draft; and again, however good the first draft is, it can never satisfy the requirement. So I think we're left with arbitrary numbers unless there is some way of determining the education level required to process whatever the content is supposed to communicate. Either way we can impose stronger requirements on content judged to be of particular public importance, as John's response to Lisa's comments acknowledges.
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2005 02:48:52 UTC