- From: Michael S Elledge <elledge@msu.edu>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:41:50 -0400
- To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>
- CC: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
That's a good point, Katie. Thanks for pointing it out. Should we include "websites" in our glossary, then, in case other people are confused? Mike On 9/22/2011 11:27 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote: > Concerning the second issue "websites" to "websites and web-delivered applications"......... > > I understand why this is being suggested, however, WCAG has a definition of "websites" that covers all kinds of web content. WCAG is web CONTENT accessibility guidelines, not the HTML accessibility guidelines. > > My 2 cents.............:-) > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael S Elledge<elledge@msu.edu> >> Sent: Sep 22, 2011 11:06 AM >> To: "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org"<public-wai-evaltf@w3.org> >> Subject: Comments on Target Audience >> >> Hi Everyone-- >> >> We may want to either revise a current use scenario or add a new one >> that includes "vendors or organizations wishing to evaluate websites" >> since I don't see a reference that would relate to companies doing this >> work. >> >> Also, I would propose that we revise wording from "websites" to >> "websites and web-delivered applications" since part of WCAG 2.0's >> intent is to be technology-agnostic, and websites may be interpreted as >> html-based content. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Mike >> > > * katie * > > Katie Haritos-Shea > Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst > > 703-371-5545 > > People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, > but they will never forget how you made them feel....... >
Received on Thursday, 22 September 2011 15:42:18 UTC