W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re[2]: FW: Accessibility of ATW

From: <karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov>
Date: 07 Jul 99 17:49:00 -0400
Message-Id: <199907072211.SAA09977@gsauns2.gsa.gov>
To: apembert@crosslink.net, kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net
I agree with Kynn.   Triple-A sites meet the 1.0 guidelines, and these are the
sites that we need to use as the bases for determining what improvements need to
become part of a subsequent version of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

The challenge for subsequent version(s) of the WCAG will be to maintain the
accessibility features already embodied while extending to additional disability
groups.  We also need to discuss how the Authoring Tools and User Agent
guidelines will become part of the solution.

Karl Hebenstreit, Jr.
US General Services Administration
Center for Information Technology Accommodation

____________________Reply Separator____________________
Subject:    Re: FW: Accessibility of ATW
Author: "kynn bartlett" <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Date:       07/07/1999 1:32 PM

At 07:48 AM 7/6/1999 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>     If a triple-A rating indicates a site is as close as possible to ALL
>disabled persons, then I seriously question whether this site deserves such
>a high rating.

A triple-AAA rating indicates a site that is close as possible to
all three levels of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0;
nothing more, nothing less.

If you feel that it's not properly accessible, then you must work
to get the guidelines updated, rather than dealing with individual
sites that claim triple-AAA compliance.

Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 1999 18:17:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:05 UTC