W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > March 2008

Re: WCAG 2 comments follow-up

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:31:26 +0100
Message-ID: <47DFC42E.8090101@w3.org>
To: Carlos Iglesias <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org


Carlos Iglesias wrote:
>>> - About comment #3
>>> Note that this means that Level ***AA*** conformance (per 1.4.5) [3],
>> not AAA as is stated at the response, could not be achieved if you wanted
>> to preserve look and feel beyond logotypes.
>>> IMO, taking into consideration the limitations of the current "state of
>> the art" for fonts representation on the Web, this is a serious backward
>> step in the effort of accessibility and business needs reconciliation, as
>> almost no business will be able to be Level AA conformant without
>> renouncing to their look & feel guidelines.
>>> I wouldn't go this way if there is a good use case to consider this a
>> serious barrier to be addressed at level AA (I don't think it is if the
>> image has a minimum size, e.g. 200% of the base size, and a proper
>> alternative).
>> I disagree, and think that it is a serious barrier to many people. I
>> have not seen many images of text that are 200% of the base font size.
> At least I expect you agree on the fact that if Level AA conformance could not be achieved if you wanted to preserve look and feel beyond logotypes is not the best way to reconcile accessibility and business needs :o)
> I would also like to clarify that my intention is not to give priority to business needs, but trying to make accessibility requirements as compatible with them as possible.
> Having said that, I think that images of text that are 200% the base font size are not so unusual in headings (some samples from the CSS Zen Garden [1 to 10]), and probably would be more frequent if people have a reason to do so.
> I suppose that when you talk about serious barrier to many people you refer to the quality of images on magnification and I agree it's not really good, depending on the zoom quality, but the question is if it's acceptable under level AA, some examples of 500% magnification at [11 to 15].
> Or maybe I'm missing any other significant barrier (remember I'm here focusing on the use case where you use images for headers because there is no way to represent the same font-family with xHTML+CSS).

I disagree that we should repeat this discussion within ERT WG ;)

Seriously, this does not directly relate to evaluation and evaluation 
methods so not really within the scope of this WG.

>>> ... 
>>> - About comment #9
>>> As I would bet for people using logos, even is none is provided by WAI,
>> it would be nice to include an explicit note with their clarification:
>>> "If a logo is used, it would constitute a claim and should be
>> accompanied by the same information required for a conformance claim."
>> If a logo is used for what? I can put any logo I want on my site/page,
>> and no one, except for the logo owner, can say what it means. The
>> question is really if WAI will provide a logo at some point.
> I just think people will create their own WCAG 2 conformance logos even if WAI don't provide them. If a logo ("official" or not) says "WCAG 2.0 AA" I understand this as a conformance claim, and from the group response I think they understand the same. This is why I think the previous paragraph may be included.

Same as above. A fair question, but not really inline with the focus of 
this group. Happy to discuss further as needed...

>>> - About comment #10
>>> If I understood correctly the WG acknowledge the dependence on
>> accessibility supported web technologies lists, but they hope to compile
>> this information during CR period.
>>> This may need further follow-up, as the absence of such a list will make
>> WCAG 2 unusable, making thus impossible to reach REC state. Still think
>> that the provision of a simple wide "baseline" accessibility supported web
>> technologies list by the WG is the easiest and simplest solution.
>> This is indeed an important (and complicated) discussion. I would not
>> say that WCAG 2.0 can not proceed to REC without such lists, but it
>> would certainly be something nice to have.
> Taking into consideration that "Pages conform to WCAG only if aspects or features of the technology that are accessibility supported can be relied upon to meet WCAG requirements."
> If you don't have any declared accessibility supported technology you can't be WCAG conformant, so I would say that without any of this lists nobody can be WCAG conformant and I think this is a good reason to not proceed to REC.
> On the other hand, what's the problem with providing a base accessibility supported web technologies list (e.g. just HTML)?
> Anyway we can wait for implementations during CR and see what happens.

Some of the problems: who would be responsible to evaluate if every Web 
technology provides sufficient accessibility support in every situation? 
Who would maintain such a list of inventory? Not an easy task...


Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 13:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:56 UTC