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

RE: [171] accessible rebroadcasts

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:55:35 +1000
Message-ID: <16122.57143.385011.251749@jdc.local>
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
Cc: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > Interesting thought
Potentially. Let's think about it further, particularly the
implications for standardization.


 > 
 > 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.

Yes. In other words you have to scope your claim appropriately, and
there might be some restrictions on the use of icons in circumstances
where they are liable to mislead readers into the erroneous conclusion
that the whole site conforms. I also agree that one couldn't make a
blanket claim that "this web site conforms to WCAG 2.0 at the minimum
level" unless the whole site actually conforms, as is currently true
of WCAG 1.0.

 > 
 > Then we just have to define  x y z

It needs further thought, yes.
 > 
 > 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.

This proposal would be implemented in policy as follows:

All content meeting conditions xyz would have to conform to WCAG 2.0
at some level (whether at the minimum level of some other level above
the minimum).

Content not satisfying conditions xyz would not be required to meet
WCAG 2.0 at all, i.e., it would be scoped out of the policy
requirement. In effect this is what all policies that I am aware of
effectively do (I am not aware of any government which has mandated
that all Web content within its jurisdiction must conform to WCAG 2.0;
usually the policy is qualified, e.g., all government-produced
content, or all content in education, associated with the provision of
goods or services, etc.). It would be perfectly possible to exempt
certain types of content as well, based on other criteria, and to
state this in a policy exception. The net impact would be that either
content is required to conform to WCAG 2.0 at the minimum level, or it
isn't required to conform at all, with no middle ground, that is, no
subset of the minimum created.
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 07:55:45 GMT

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