W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: ATAG2:Clarifying that conformance claims are optional in B.2.1.1

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:04:29 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8E7A7D.7000403@utoronto.ca>
CC: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Tim,

Those are important concerns.

Of course we do want to encourage conformance to ATAG 2.0, but that is 
different than making a formal claim. In fact, trying to be push for 
formality may actually dissuade some developers because they might be 
afraid of real-world legal consequences if they make a formal claim that 
turns out to be erroneous. WCAG 2.0 takes the same optional approach to 
conformance claims.

Cheers,
Jan



On 03/03/2010 8:58 AM, Boland Jr., Frederick E. wrote:
> How would ATAG2.0 conformance be demonstrated, if not by making a conformance claim?
> Why would offerers go to all the work of making a conformance claim if it's optional?  Don't we want to encourage ATAG2.0 conformance?  I hope this is put on a survey.. apologize if I'm missing something..
> Thanks and best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:12 PM
> To: WAI-AUWG List
> Subject: ATAG2:Clarifying that conformance claims are optional in B.2.1.1
>
> Hi all,
>
> The current wording of B.2.1.1 links to the conformance claim section to
> explain the concepts of included and excluded technologies with no
> clarification that conformance claims are optional. I propose we add that:
>
> PROPOSED NEW WORDING:
>
> B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides authors with a
> choice between web content technology options, then the following
> information is provided for each option: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.1.1]
> (a) General Information: general information about the accessibility of
> the technology to end users; and
> (b) For "Included Technologies": information on the accessible content
> support features provided for that technology by the authoring tool; and
> (c) For "Excluded Technologies": both a warning that choosing that
> technology may result in web content accessibility problems and
> information on alternative included technologies (if available).
> NOTE: If a conformance claim is made, the claim cites the Included and
> Exclude technologies.
>
>
> CURRENT WORDING:
>
> B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides authors with a
> choice between web content technology options, then the following
> information is provided for each option: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.1.1]
> (a) General Information: general information about the accessibility of
> the technology to end users; and
> (b) For "Included Technologies": for technologies included in a
> conformance claim, information on the accessible content support
> features provided for that technology by the authoring tool; and
> (c) For "Excluded Technologies": for technologies excluded from a
> conformance claim, both a warning that choosing that technology may
> result in web content accessibility problems and information on
> alternative included technologies (if available).
>
>
> --
> (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
> jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060
>
> Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
> Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
>
>

-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060

Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 15:04:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 March 2010 15:05:01 GMT