W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > October to December 2007

EOWG Comments on WCAG 2.0 Conformance

From: Wayne Dick <wed@csulb.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:36:07 -0800
Message-ID: <473C7577.50908@csulb.edu>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org

Carefully reading Conformance I found the following difficulties:

The claim "It [meaning the section] also explains what it means for Web 
content technologies to be accessibility supported" is false.  The 
section actually does the following: It explains how the accessibility 
support for Web content technologies fits into the conformance status of 
a page that uses the web technology.

 

I was assigned to look at Conformance Requirement (4) for better 
wording.  I have read it and its supporting links and the wording is 
about as good as it can get in the space required.  The link to "relies 
upon" really clarifies the meaning.  The next Requirement (5), 
Non-Interference, also clarifies the point by giving concrete situations 
in which non-supported technology can be used if its effect is neutral.

 

Note 5, in the definition of "conforming alternative version" is 
ambiguous.  The word "scope" can have several meanings within this 
context, and its intended meaning is not clear.  Does it mean "lexical 
scope" or what?

 

The conformance section is clear and as easy to read as a conformance 
section can be.  It is a dramatic improvement.  Good Work WCAG WG.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 16:36:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:46 GMT