Re: Should we consider factors other than accessibility [was Textual Images vs. Styled Text

The issue is that a policy comes out that says, "use WCAG" but then someone 
goes to use it (e.g. Len) and comes up with a question like "if I use text 
in a raster image can I claim double A conformance to WCAG." When WCAG WG 
is asked the question, we can't agree on how to interpret it (although I 
thought we had been really close a couple times).  If we have multiple 
interpretations, imagine what is happening elsewhere.  How are the people 
who aren't asking for an interpretation designing content?  How are they 
interpreting our work?

In the requirements for WCAG 2.0 we state,
<blockquote>
2. Ensure that the minimal conformance requirements are clear
WCAG 2.0 must clearly specify the minimal requirements necessary for 
conformance. Each requirement must be easily verifiable. The WG will 
provide resources to help readers evaluate conformance, such as 
technology-specific checklists, sample sites, sample renderings (aural as 
well as graphical), and processes for determining conformance (e.g., in 
conjunction with the ERT and EO WGs).
The deliverables must:
·       Distinguish what is required for conformance from what provides 
additional accessibility.
·       Clearly specify how content that is tailored according to client or 
user capabilities may conform (dynamic content or database driven).
·       Resolve the relationship between user agent support and author 
supplied content (cross-platform and backwards compatibility issues).
·       Document the assumptions that underly the minimum requirements.
</blockquote>

We have discussed "technology-specific checkpoints."  I believe these are 
attempts to address these issues.  Part of the problem is tools and testing 
methods.  If people can experience the difficulties that people with 
disabilities experience, they are less likely to design inaccessible 
content.  If we can give them tools that will show them how badly a raster 
image magnifies, perhaps they will be less likely to use them.  But, then 
we need to be prepared to tell them what to do instead.  In the end, 
however it is up to the designer.  We can give them information but we can 
not make decisions for them.

--wendy

At 05:11 PM 11/29/00 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>As I understand the work of this group, it is to develop a technical
>reference which outlines the requirements for content to make it accessible.
>
>I do not think this group should attempt to describe the state of the art of
>accessibility in technology around the world, cost it out, and then determine
>that we know what makes sense for exception cases.
>
>It is not the remit of this group (or any W3C group) to determine what
>particular people who have to design web pages for a living actually do. In
>some cases, this document is used by governments or purchasers who say "Do
>what is in this document, because that defines accessibility". In other cases
>(for example the Australian government, and the Australian Human Rights and
>Equal Opportunities Commission) they say "Make the site accessible. The WCAG
>specification tells you what you need to know, better than anything else, so
>that is a good palce to start".
>
>If we try to determine what we think are acceptable exception cases, then we
>will not have a reference for what makes content accessible, beyond WCAG 1.0,
>and I think that would be a shame. It is also a disservice to the communities
>we are trying to serve.
>
>At the Web Accessibility Summit held in Australia recently, co-sponsored by
>the W3C Australian Office, the Deputy Commissioner for Human Rights
>(disability), Graham Innes, said that the Commission's view was simple: use
>the WCAG guidelines.
>
>In response to a specific question about whether this was a guarantee that
>you would not be discriminating, he said that it was not a guarantee, it was
>simply the best advice the Commission had about what to do to ensure
>accessibility. If a site that was triple-A was not accessible to someone, and
>could be made so, the commission would normally order the changes to be made
>(like many such bodies, the commission exempts certain cases on the basis
>that it would pose an unreasonable hardship to comply). Likewise, it is not
>possible to proceed against a site becuase it does not meet WCAG, it is
>necessary to show that there is an actual problem.
>
>This is what I consider a good use of the guidelines in a legal or paralegal
>situation. The fact that the people who have actually gone to the extent of
>handing down a finding consider that the WCAG is the best reference available
>suggests to me that we are on the right track.
>
>Charles McCN
>
>
>
>On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>
>   Shades of meaning aside, this is an issue we need to face head on.
>
>   WCAG 1 priorities, and therefore compliance, are based explictly only on
>   accessibility:  P1, P2, P3, correspond to whether
>
>         "one or more groups will find it impossible/difficult/somewhat
>   difficult to access information in the document"
>
>   There is no explicit refererence to any perceived or real tradeoffs against
>   non-accessibility factors that this involves, although   some folks have
>   read implicit references into some guidelines.
>
>   As I understand it this was a considered, deliberate decision for WCAG 1.0,
>   and I agree that we need to have such a standard, one that only deals with
>   accessibility.
>
>   However, I also agree (with e.g. Kynn) that these tradeoffs have to be
>   explicitly considered _somewhere_ . If WAI doesn't consider the tradeoffs,
>   someone else will, and we may not like what they come up with.
>
>   Do we want to consider the tradeoffs here in GL?  If not then indeed, its a
>   WAI coordination group issue.

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 17:36:31 UTC