- From: <karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov>
- Date: 07 Jul 99 17:49:00 -0400
- To: apembert@crosslink.net, kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com
- cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, webmaster@dors.sailorsite.net
- Message-Id: <199907072211.SAA09977@gsauns2.gsa.gov>
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 (WCAG). 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 http://www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/cita ____________________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