Re: Issue 324: Proposal for revised checkpoint 6.2

This line of reasoning says in fact that a double-A compliant browser must
implement specifications that allow double-A conformance to WCAG, but makes
no requirement at all to reach single-A, since the underlying checkpoint is
priority 2.

Cheers

Charles

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Jon Gunderson wrote:
  >
  > Response in JRG:
  > At 10:28 AM 12/28/2000 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
  > >Jon Gunderson wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Ian,
  > > > I like the new checkpoint.  How do you feel about making the requirement to
  > > > conform to WCAG 1.0 at a P2 requirement.  I would use the same argument for
  > > > P2 as the group used to make documentation conformance a P2 level.
  > >
  > >I would object to that. Here are some reasons:
  [snip]
  > >  - By imposing a P2 requirement here, were are in effect saying
  > >    that all content on the Web must be level Double-A conformant.
  > >    Otherwise, no user agent will be able to conform to UAAG 1.0.
  > >    I don't believe we should impose that restriction on authors
  > >    or user agent developers.
  >
  > JRG: I think what we would be saying is that the potential of the web
  > should be at least double-A conformant content.

  It sounds to me like this line of reasoning places the
  entire burden of ensuring support for WCAG-conformant content
  on checkpoint 6.2. But there are lots of other checkpoints
  (P1 through P3) that are there to support WCAG-conformant authoring.
  Checkpoint 6.2 just says: To even get the ball rolling, the UA
  has
  to implement formats capable of supporting accessible authoring
  to begin with.

  If we impose Level Double-A conformance to WCAG in checkpoint
  6.2, that means that it will be impossible to create a UAAG
  conforming browser for formats that only support Level-A
  WCAG authoring. Suppose there were a WAI document entitled
  "Format Accessibility Guidelines". There would be no
  point in this document having a Level A conformance since no
  user agent could do only Level A and conform to UAAG 1.0.
  Since we don't have a "Format Accessibility Guidelines" today,
  we are relying on an indirection, by saying "formats that
  allow WCAG conformant authoring." This suggests strongly to
  me that if we require WCAG Double-A conformance, then we
  render meaningless WCAG's Level A, and I don't recommend that.

  > If user agents can only
  > render single-A compliant information then the potential of the web is only
  > single-A compliant content.

  That's not what 6.2 says. 6.2 only talks about the potential
  for accessibility. The other checkpoints for *actual content*
  address issues of rendering, navigation, control of style, etc.

   _ Ian

  > The potential of the web should be in my
  > opinion triple-A compliant content, so the requirement to allow the
  > rendering of at least one double-A compliant content language is a
  > compromise between requiring single-A (impossible) and triple-A (easier to
  > use).

  > I think the potential to access content that is not difficult
  > (double-A) for people with disabilities is important and the argument used
  > for at least one double-A conformant version of the documentation.



-- 
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, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 16:00:20 UTC