Re: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> Well, I would vote for a relative priority as used in ATAG. It seems odd to
> have a triple-A tool where the documentation has removed the absolute
> barriers, but not the significant impediments, to using the documentation.

I have two comments:

1) I think Eric's proposal is a clarification of the current
implications
   of checkpoint 11.1. Therefore, I think it can be incorporated as
   an editorial change.

2) I think Charles' comment raises a new issue for this checkpoint.
   We have had two previous issues about relative priority 
   checkpoints (Issue 267 [1] for checkpoint 11.2 and Issue 111 [2]
   for checkpoint 6.1). 

   In both of those cases, we did not choose a relative priority
   scheme and both checkpoints remained P1. For checkpoint 6.1,
   it was felt that authors would never use P3 features unless
   UAs supported them. And for checkpoint 11.2, it was felt that
   knowing about UA features that promote accessibility
   (whatever their priority) was critical to using the tool.
  
   Checkpoint 11.1 is slightly different; it's about the
   documentation itself, not features being supported or
   documented. 

   I understand Charles' point, and I could live with a relative
   priority checkpoint here. However, I would prefer just leaving
   it a Level-A requirement and keeping the document simpler.
   I would not be in favor of choosing Level Double-A just because
   it's in the middle.

 - Ian

[1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#267
[2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#111
 
> Charles
> 
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 
>   Ian Jacobs wrote:
>   >
>   > "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
>   > > 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.
> 
>   I would go further to say that this is an editorial clarification
>   and I will add it to the next draft (with a note that the WG has
>   not confirmed this proposal). Since we have not specified to date
>   which particular level of WCAG conformance is required, it follows
>   that the minimal level is WCAG Level-A.
> 
>   If there is any opposition to Level-A being the minimal level
>   of conformance for this checkpoint, please speak up.
> 
>    _ Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia

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

Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 00:45:14 UTC