- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:08:42 -0500 (EST)
- To: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>, Web Accessibility Initiative <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Actually I agree with Kynn. The priority scheme says that if you don't meet level-A there are some group or groups of people who are not able to access the content. Priority 2 - double-A - includes all the things that are important to remobing barriers which put some people at a significant disadvantage in trying to access content. cheers Charles On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Bruce Bailey wrote: Kynn, You said: > I use the phrase "minimally accessible" as a complete synonym for > "WCAG P1 Compliant," myself. That strikes me as a little harsh! How good does a site have to be before getting your seal of approval? Do you have a complete synonym for an AA site? An AAA site? Granted, we are debating the merits of promoting a few P2 items, and we don't want to discourage folks from addressing as many P2 and P3 items as possible. Still, meeting A compliance levels means that a site is pretty damn accessible, especially compared to the majority of sites out there! Add to that the fact that many non WCAG P1 Compliant sites are perfectly usable (with a screen reader or whatever) once one experiments enough to learn which unlabeled [LINK]'s are important and which are not. What is the vernacular for describing such a site, "less than minimally accessible"? Add to that the fact that many P2 and P3 items (given the current state of the art with browsers) are pretty much inconsequential. I think it is counter productive to be dismissive of Level A compliance.
Received on Monday, 20 March 2000 17:08:46 UTC