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

Re: WCAG conformance profiles (claims vs. certificates)

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:49:32 +0100
Message-ID: <01b401c28e50$ecde1360$5ffefea9@NBRSIWA>
To: "WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: WCAG conformance profiles (claims vs. certificates)

> Of course you are right.

Thank u :-)

> 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
> 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.

I agree to your action. My suggestion is also due especially for the
developing of accessible web sites for Public Administration Campaign
launched by EU that have endorsed the WCAG 1.0 Guidelines. The problem is
that a lot of developer don't knows the guidelines and they claim the reach
of an accessibility level (1, 2, 3) using only validation tools like Bobby:
if they see the logo "Bobby Approved", for example, they don't check the
"priority user check" and this could be done in good faith or in bad faith
(more accessibility level could mean more money from Public
Administration... and we need to find something for control this wrong
"accessibility business" because as i wrote in my previous message, a wrong
logo usage could cause wrong emulation in web developers.

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

I agree in this. Is important not only to set the reccomandations but also
have a support for grant the right use and mantain good quality for the
logos. I have also seen something in the QA (http://www.w3.org/QA/).

Tomorrow will start the three days AC Meeting and i follow it in IRC... i
hope that could be possible to discuss also about this.

> PS: Roberto, as AC rep you will want to be campaigning WAI for the ER
> to stay alive and work on these issues.  Talk to Wendy and Judy and you
> find that what you have to say resonates with what some others are saying.

Ok... i talk with the "WAI girls" .-)
Received on Sunday, 17 November 2002 10:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC