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: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 08:54:38 +0200
Message-ID: <001201c330af$8515bbf0$0100a8c0@NBRSIWA>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hum.... i think if we "adapt" the WCAG to the 508, for the same we need to
adapt the WCAG to all the local countries normative but - as had said during
a meeting in Venice Daniel Dardailler - local government representative must
be involved in the working group and the WCAG must be "the document".

In Italy there is a discussion that said that with WCAG 1.0 is difficoult to
apply a law, due to the impossibility to verify some checkpoints: with WCAG
2.0 we need to create a real "conformance matrix", where could be possible
for the local government (or their "certificator representative) to simply
translate (but sounds be good that local office of W3C make an official
translation of the normative document) and apply the WCAG.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:39 AM
Subject: RE: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next
draft



Interesting idea that last one.  (WCAG 2.O+508)   Have to ponder that one.

Does it imply 508 and 2.0 are different --- or that 508 is a variant of 2.0
- or superset -- or....

hmmm

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt May [mailto:mcmay@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 5:23 PM
To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
Cc: gv@trace.wisc.edu; 'Carlos A Velasco'; 'Wendy A Chisholm';
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next
draft

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 Thursday, 12 June 2003 02:54:58 GMT

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