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

RE: [171] accessible rebroadcasts

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 05:56:09 -0500
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <001f01c33bd1$8fc51f50$fd030a0a@USD320002X>

Interesting thought

You can make conformance claims (preferably in metadata) for any page or
subset of pages you like.   But you cant use the Logo or say the Site
conforms unless x y z.

Then we just have to define  x y z

Very interesting thought.


I'm not sure this solves the problem of not requiring too much in
core-required though.   Have to think about it.   But seems that countries
would still have to create minimum sets that did not include all of our
required.

But for individual conformance claims this is an interesting one to think
about

Thanks Jason.

 
Gregg

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


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 7:42 PM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: [171] accessible rebroadcasts


My recallection of the issue is that the option of using scope of
conformance claims in this way was still open, but we hadn't decided
whether we wanted to limit it to avoid the types of cases that John
mentioned in his contribution to this thread. Gregg also raised the
example once before of a hypothetical commerce site in which
everything is claimed to be conformant except the order completion
form.

I also think we need to distinguish scoping of conformance claims from
the creation of subsets of our core checkpoints. The latter shouldn't
be endorsed for conformance purposes - one can't implement a subset
of the minimum and then claim WCAG conformance, as this leads to a
fragmentation of the standard. However, that's a different issue from
determining that certain content must, or need not, as the case may
be, conform at all.

I also wonder whether the issue John reiterated with his well chosen
illustrations is ultimately a problem of perception. For example,
given accurate metadata conformance claims, a tool could tell you that
only the main pages are WCAG 2.0-conformant but the remainder aren't,
whereas iconic (and to a lesser extent textual) conformance claims can
more readily be misinterpreted, especially by those who aren't
acquainted with the details of the conformance scheme.

One solution might be to separate "conformance claims" from
"conformance logos" and to impose stronger conditions on the use of
the latter. I haven't considered the implications of this idea in
great detail but it ought at least to be discussed when we return to
these conformance-related issues.

Comments? Proposals?
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 06:56:15 GMT

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