W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: WCAG conformance profiles (claims vs. certificates)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:31:14 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021117101824.02862980@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

At 09:53 AM 2002-11-17, you wrote:

>Sure but the problem is: is people able to understand claims? I see for
>experience that people consider a valid HTML, XHTML, CSS, WCAG 1.0 A, AA,
>AAA valid web sites if they see the logo put in the website...
>This IMHO,

Of course you are right.

I just got the XML2002 website cleaned up in fact.

Some of their pages contained a DOCTYPE of HTML 4.0 and the icon said 4.01.
When I reported this, rather quickly the webmaster changed things so they
match.  This is a group that appreciates the value of conformance.  But
there have been too many scams where all that you are assured is that you
get what you get.

The system has to make the confirmation check easy for the few who are
skeptics in order for the "many eyes" or "bazaar" effect of the web to
protect the many who are too busy to check.

The W3C is weak on enforcement.  Accessibility may indeed remain the spear
point in setting precedents where W3C/QA will eventually follow.  But we also
need to form a coalition with the XML community who care about valid stuff
in mounting the validity campaign.

Al

PS: Roberto, as AC rep you will want to be campaigning WAI for the ER group
to stay alive and work on these issues.  Talk to Wendy and Judy and you will
find that what you have to say resonates with what some others are saying.
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 10:31:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT