W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

Response from Jon Gunderson on Comment 2

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:04:56 -0500 (CDT)
To: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Cc: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Message-Id: <20070606090456.AQY97341@expms1.cites.uiuc.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060612141417.35612BDA8@w3c4.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-762)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

These requirement seems to deal with collections of web resources (units).  I think that this should be stated that you are creating some type of conformance for a collection of resources. It would make it much clearer.  I think this should also be in the conformance section.

If a resource does not meet the requirements, it just doesn't meet the requirements.

Proposed Change:

1. Move this requirement to conformance section
2. Clearly state you want people to be able to make conformance claims on collections of resources.

----------------------------
Response from Working Group:
----------------------------

We have revised the conformance section significantly and have
clarified how claims for collections of versions can be made: 4.)
Alternate Versions: If the Web page does not meet all of the success criteria for a specified level, then a mechanism to obtain an alternate version that meets all of the success criteria can be derived from the nonconforming content or its URI, and that mechanism meets all success criteria for the specified level of conformance. The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple pages). If multiple language versions are available, then conforming
versions are required for each language offered.

Response from Jon Gunderson:
I think the conformance section is confusing.  Suggesting a page that is not accessible is now accessible because it references an alternative page that is accessible is misleading about the page.  The only thing that is accessible is the alternative page and that should be the only thing that can be labeled as passing.  The linking page to the alternative stands on its own accessibility merits.  This type of conformance option also perpetuates the myths that accessibility means creating something so different that alternative page is needed and accessibility is a burden since it requires twice the work to create duplicate pages.  This was a necessary requirement for WCAG 1.0, but I think is out date for the world we live in now. 
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D.
Director of IT Accessibility Services (CITES)
and 
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology (DRES)

WWW: http://www.cita.uiuc.edu/
WWW: https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/jongund/www/
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 14:05:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC