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
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 05:51:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC