W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: Level AA exceptions

From: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:36:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC9gL74Q=JvYAXU-eBCjPmW-3Dz0D6FNs1+jGCFrt-SRVEfFTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
What is normative? That really is the issue. I am less concerned
informative notes because they are non-binding. Having attempted to explain
Level A and Level AA many times to managers and programmers, I have found
the logic of Understanding WCAG 2.0, very difficult and not compelling.
Phill is correct. There is a gap that needs filling. We need clear
language. I think, normative.

In my opinion it needs to be clear in its responsibility to stake holders,
with the user with a disability being at the center.  Web content in all
formats is be profoundly robust. The migration to mobile formats has proven
this. There is no need that essential functionality needs cannot be met,
but we need to address concepts like the American terms, undue burden and
fundamental alteration, carefully and land on normative language.  Like all
statements in natural language we need to allow for interpretation. Perhaps
we need a formal elastic clause that permits variation.

‚ÄčI think what we can all agree on is that, level differentiation needs
clarification.  Now that WCAG is beyond the crazy flurry of criticism that
it faced in 2008, WCAG WG can revisit these definitions.

Phill has identifies a gap, that has confused many implementers.

Received on Friday, 14 August 2015 16:37:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:53 UTC