- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 09:04:18 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: 'WAI-GL' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >And at level 3 I guess I don't have a problem. > I've seen and heard this comment so many times now that I have to say something. What is to be inferred from this statement in most contexts is that the rigors of higher-priority success criteria (e.g., testability) are less applicable to Level 3 items, and therefore less worthy of further specification or extended discussion. And I agree. I've been saying that all along. This is why I have advocated two levels of conformance (single-A and double-A) while keeping three priority levels in the document. Take a look at the requirements set out in Level 3. Who in the world would be able to conform to all of these for any single site? And yet, we know from experience that people will claim triple-A conformance against all evidence to the contrary, simply because the conformance level exists. WCAG 2 raises the bar even further, and yet, we will have the same false claims in WCAG 2 if we offer a triple-A conformance level. This is damaging not only to the triple-A mark, but to all WCAG marks. In other words, it's bad for Web accessibility to set norms no one (or nearly no one) can achieve. It appears that Level 3 is a place for success criteria that are ambiguously-worded, or are good ideas that lack adequate definition, or are not broadly applicable, or are an awful lot of work. If this is the case, we are more likely to gain adoption of these criteria in mainstream sites by presenting them as advanced accessibility needs, and suggesting them for those who can find a way to implement them, than by adding them to a conformance set that is burdensome, confusing and sometimes impossible to achieve. Further, those SC that aren't well-defined and achievable are bound to hold us back when we try to advance the document. We can ignore these issues now, but eventually they will be called up, and we will have to have an answer when someone asks us why they deserve to be in the document. It's better to answer that now than be recycled back to Working Draft status later. I renew my objection to the triple-A conformance level on these grounds. I would accept A+ or AA+ marks for those who conform to a given level, plus certain Level 3 success criteria, or some means of itemizing what SC a site conforms to. But I'd like us to stop dancing around what these SC really are. - m
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 16:04:18 UTC