W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: Accessibility requirement

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:50:23 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670807302250j1174b41br51bf26cefbaec274@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: "Cynthia Shelly" <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> Marcos, Cynthia,
>
> Perhaps requirement #37 as currently written [1] is overly prescriptive.
>
> For example, rather than trying to enumerate the sub-requirements for the
> other language (i.e. the non-HTML language), there could just be a reference
> to a spec/doc that defines the requirements for a language to be accessible.
>
> Also, the last sentence appears to be a statement about a Widget instance
> (and not a requirement for a Widget UA) and hence should not be normative.
>
> Combining the above comments, I get:
>
> [[
> A conforming specification must specify that the language used to declare
> the user interface of a widget be either HTML or a language that is
> accessible as defined by [?SOME-WAI-RESOURCE?].
> ]]
>

I'm willing to point the Requirements doc to WCAG 1 or 2 if the group
wants me to. I personally don't agree with a lot of the things in WCAG
1 or 2, but if it's the best we have so be it. It would be helpful if
others with more experience in this area could provide some guidance
on how to proceed.


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 05:51:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT