Re: Slight rewording of 2.4 success criteria

Hi Jutta,

Remember my example from yesterday
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2004OctDec/0070.html>

"JR: Imagine a clip-art management system that works as follows: it
stores jpgs in a folder along with a text document that includes an
index of the images as well as accessibility information (text labels
and long descriptions) for each image. When the author chooses to
"Insert Clip-Art" they choose from amongst the images and the authoring
tool automatically retrieves the accessibility information and adds it
to the image. I think this example should pass even though the storage
mechanism does not conform to WCAG, because when the system is used it
does not introduce accessibility problems."

Barry (and I believe Bob and Greg) have made the point that we need to 
be clear that the pre-authored content need not conform to WCAG until it 
is actually retrieved for use.

Cheers,
Jan


Jutta Treviranus wrote:

> Here is a proposed simplification of the success criteria for  2.4
> 
> Present wording:
>         1.      Any authoring tool that provides Web  content (e.g. 
> templates, clip art, example pages, etc.) that is bundled with the 
> authoring tool or preferentially licensed  (i.e. provided for free or 
> sold at a discount) to the users of  the authoring tool (as compared to 
> non-users of that tool), then  all of that Web content/ must/ @@BF: , 
> when inserted/added,@@  always conform  to WCAG.
> 
> Proposed new wording:
> 
> Any Web content that is bundled with the authoring tool or 
> preferentially licensed to the users of the authoring tool (i.e. 
> provided for free or sold at a discount), must conform to WCAG.
> 
> Jutta

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Thursday, 11 November 2004 20:18:34 UTC