W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next draft

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:23:22 -0700
Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Carlos A Velasco'" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Message-Id: <4FD8E2D4-9C5B-11D7-A0C0-000393B628BC@w3.org>

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 12:06  AM, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG 
wrote:
> I agree with Gregg.
> The problem now in Europe is that in some countries (like Italy) some 
> part
> of the government wanna create normative "section 508-like" and not 
> the full
> receipt of the WCAG.

Then _they_ should specify a conformance profile, and they should 
specify _which_ checkpoints over and above Core. No self-respecting 
organization is going to issue a content requirement that allows people 
to select items "a la carte" to implement. If they're going to make 
laws out of WCAG, they should select and require items in the extended 
set when they do it.

Core will be the most important set. From there, I think the focus 
should be on telling potential adopters (governmental and 
institutional) to start with nothing less than Core, and add 
requirements from there. Core+ does not help.

As far as 508 goes, I think we'd do well to create a Core+508 profile 
as an informative example. We could show that adopting our requirements 
and processes will allow authors and ER tools to state authoritatively, 
"this is 508", while still adopting the principles of good design that 
WCAG contains (and 508 leaves out).

-
m
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 18:23:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT