- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:12:42 -0400
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, barnicle@trace.wisc.edu
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
At 01:30 PM 2000-08-18 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote: >I could live with that,. What do other people think? > AG:: There appears to be an editorial error in the email bearing the proposal, that should be corrected to be crystal clear. >> >>How about the following relative expression of the checkpoint: >> >> Provide a version of the product documentation that >> conforms to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines >> 1.0 [WCAG10]. [Priority 1 for Level A conformance, Priority 2 >> for Level Double-A conformance, Priority 3 for Level Triple-A >> conformance.] >> >>1) This isn't too long or complicated. >>2) The implication is that if you want to be a level Double-A >> conforming UA, your documentation has to conform to WCAG 1.0 >> level A. If you want to be a Triple-AAA UA, your documentation AG:: where this line says level A, it should say level Double-A, as I read the definitive statement above. Al >> has to be Triple-AAA WCAG. >> >> I think that the real implication there is that there will >> never be any Triple-AAA user agents... >> >>3) The best documentation is no documentation (i.e., the >> user interface is so good you don't need any)! >> >> - Ian >> >> >> > Jon >> > >> > At 12:23 AM 8/18/2000 -0400, 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. >> > > >> > >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 >> >> >> >>-- >>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >>Tel: +1 831 457-2842 >>Cell: +1 917 450-8783 > >Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP >Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology >Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services >MC-574 >College of Applied Life Studies >University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign >1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL 61820 > >Voice: (217) 244-5870 >Fax: (217) 333-0248 > >E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu > >WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund >WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua >
Received on Friday, 18 August 2000 16:01:25 UTC