W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2017

Addition to comment 211

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 16:27:17 +0000
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB6PR0901MB0919305C14768EB0A6AAD54FB9470@DB6PR0901MB0919.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Lisa,

I think there are a couple of small additions that would help provide meaningful answers to two implicit questions:

NB: John's response is very good, I'm just picking up on the un-asked questions that Lisa highlighted!

1. Why aren't these important SC higher level?

Regarding which level each SC is specified as, this is always a balance between the needs of the user, and how difficult it is to implement for website designers/developers.  We appreciate that there are very strong user-needs for some SC that are not currently at A or AA level, however, if the requirement put on website owners significantly increases the difficulty or cost of making web content, there is a risk that the standard is rejected by businesses and governments.

Is it possible that you could provide more information on what benefit the SC provide?

2. Are guidelines the right mechanism?

Please note that many of the improvements needed for people with disabilities are very difficult to get just by using guidelines.
For people with cognitive issues especially, it overlaps very closely with general usability issues. In many cases the best method or improving things is with a user-centred design process. The COGA task force is working on an associated document that provides organisations with the good practice processes that can make all the difference to the result.

Hopefully that's a good starting point, Lisa, could you edit /update that?


Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2017 16:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:18 UTC