Re: Level AA exceptions

This is how I remember it also...

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

www.Can-Adapt.com



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden <
gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

> Hi
> I think the answer is simple.    (I know people just want something else -
> but this is what it means.)
>
>
>
> *What do the WCAG levels mean?*
>
>    - A = Minimum to conform to WCAG
>    - AA = More accessible
>    - AAA = even more accessible, when you can  - But even AAA does not
>    mean that it is accessible to everyone.  As stated in the WCAG - there are
>    people who cannot use AAA conformant content.
>
>
> They don’t mean else.    And should not be interpreted to mean anything
> more.   (e.g.  Level A SC are more important than level AA or more
> essential or anything else).  It is not even true that Level A are a higher
> priority than Level AA.   For some sites, some Level A provisions may have
> little or no effect on the accessibility of the site - while a level AA
> provision has great impact.
>
>
>
>
> *How did things get assigned to the levels?  -*
> again it is simply stated.
>
>
>    - Each SC is at it’s level because, after looking at all the factors
>    and considering all the different points of view and public input, it was a
>    consensus of the working group that it be in that level.
>
>
>
>
>
> *gregg*
>
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> ​I 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.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>