Re: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1

"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> To: UA list
> From: Eric Hansen
> Re:
> 
> I think that the conformance requirement for documentation in checkpoint
> 11.1 needs to be clarified and, if my inference about the meaning of
> checkpoint 11.1 is correct, then it is too strict and needs to be loosened.
> 
> I can imagine a developer of module A says, "I have this composite user
> agent D composed of modules A, B, and C. My documentation for module A is
> Triple-A WCAG 1.0 conformant, as is the documentation for module B. But the
> documentation for module C is only Double-A conformant because there were
> some acronyms that were not expanded (WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 4.2). Therefore,
> overall, the documentation for composite user agent D is only Double-A
> conformant, thus ensuring (per checkpoint 11.1) that my conformance claim is
> no better than Double-A conformant."
> 
> I think that this standard is too strict.
> 
> Old (28 July 2000):
> 
> "11.1 Provide a version of the product documentation that conforms to the
> Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]
> Note: User agents may provide documentation in many formats, but at least
> one must conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]."
> 
> New:
> 
> "11.1 Provide a version of the product documentation that conforms to
> level-A of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]
> Note: User agents may provide documentation in many formats, but at least
> one must conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]."
> 
> Note that I have only required level-A conformance. I don't think that level
> triple-A is appropriate at all; Priority 3 checkpoint "may" help people with
> disabilities. Double-A conformance might be warranted.
> 
> I think that we need to minimize such interpendencies.

It's my opinion that we don't have to say this since to conform at
all to WCAG 1.0 you must conform at least a level-A. However, if people
feel that saying level-A explicitly clarifies the minimal requirement,
I'm ok with this proposal.

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Thursday, 17 August 2000 17:04:33 UTC