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

RE: MS2 - applicability of ATAG 2

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:43:46 +0100
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4219A0ECCAE794C9ED7DC6F5A4C0CD537B2E0F0F3@jupiter.intranet.nomensa.com>
> MS2: "The biggest concern for ATAG 2.0 is that it is never clear if
> ATAG is for a single tool or a collection of tools. It is trying to be
> both..."

I've been thinking about this, and I suspect the process WCAG 2.0 went through could provide guidance.

Not all websites (or web pages) provide video, so when applying WCAG to a page without multimedia, those guidelines aren't relevant. For a web page with one heading and a paragraph, very few of the WCAG checkpoints apply.

In the same way, very few ATAG checkpoints would apply to a Facebook status update, but ATAG *does* apply it as a web-authoring tool.

WCAG got to a reasonably short & understandable set of guidelines by being technology agnostic, and moving those aspects to the techniques and understanding documents.
Whether a page is created with HTML or Flash, some checkpoints apply, but the means of applying them is separated into the techniques.

I'll read through the document again, looking for ways we could apply the same sort of approach. I've only read it twice, so I have a slightly fresher pair of eyes than many here!

Kind regards,

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 15:44:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:59 UTC