RE: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1

Denis,

I understand that we have often subscribed to this "weakest link" theory,
but it seems that in some cases it leads to unduly harsh and perhaps
unrealistic decisions...

I think that this theory may need to be reexamined in the context of user
agents that are composed of many user agents that are likely outside the
control of the claimant. I know that this may be hard to accept for some,
but maybe a claim for a composite user agent must designate 'prime user
agent' that is kept to a higher standard and other user agents that may have
a lower standard...

As others have said, I think that we need to strive to avoid excessive
interdendencies between components and this "weakest link" theory seems to
lead to an unduly harsh interdependency...

Thanks!

- Eric


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Denis Anson [mailto:danson@miseri.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 8:05 AM
> To: Hansen, Eric; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> I'm not sure exactly of your argument here, but I don't think that a
> combined set of documentation can be considered to be any 
> more accessible
> than the least accessible component.  (This is the "weakest 
> link" analogy.)
> So, in your case, the combined documentation would be 
> considered no more
> than Double-A conformant.
> 
> If a user agent is going to be conformant based on a set of 
> add-ons, then
> the combined set must be conformant, including in the 
> documentation.  The
> one roadblock that keeps me for figuring out what to do may 
> be that least
> conformant feature, but if I don't have access to that, it might block
> access to the whole set.
> 
> Denis Anson
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Hansen, Eric
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 4:53 PM
> To: 'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'
> Subject: Accessibility of Documentation, checkpoint 11.1
> 
> 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.
> 
> ===========================
> Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
> Development Scientist
> Educational Testing Service
> ETS 12-R
> Princeton, NJ 08541
> 609-734-5615 (Voice)
> E-mail: ehansen@ets.org
> (W) 609-734-5615 (Voice)
> FAX 609-734-1090
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 20 August 2000 17:36:02 UTC