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

Re: WCAG 01 for legacy pages and WCAG 02 for new content.

From: Doyle <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:50:39 -0900
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BA4C3EFF.8A4%dburnett@sesa.org>
To The Group -

I too feel that those developers that have complied with WCAG 1.0 and have
sites (presently) that are accessible under those guidelines should not feel
compelled to retrofit to WCAG 2.0.  This for many organizations/companies
would become a major burden (and as we¹ve discussed there are many issues:
copyright, readability, no prior knowledge of conformance review, etc).

But, at some point along a line of advanced technologies (at the development
and the access end) there may become issues that relate to site developers
need (either imposed or not) to go back and retrofit for accessibility and
WCAG 2.0 or whatever would be in place at a given time.  Meaning, guidelines
will need to be dynamic and change over time to match the future state of
technologies being used by an end user, user agents and web developers,
other.  Maybe as guidelines change, we could state that conformance would be
met at a certain guideline level (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc) so long as the present
conformance is not more than one conformance level below that which is
current.  Example: if there were a set of WCAG 5.0 guidelines as a current
standard, the minimum conformance would need to be at least at a WCAG 4.0
for all content that was developed between 4.0 and the current 5.0.  I hope
this makes sense ­ now I am even getting confused but think I know what I am
trying to say.  And, I have no clue where this would fit in the scheme of
things.

Just my ³two cents worth² -

Dolye 
-- 
Doyle Burnett
Education Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
907-562-7372


on 1/16/03 10:18 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden at gv@trace.wisc.edu wrote:

>  
> 
> Lisa Seeman Wrote:  Perhaps it makes more sense for people could conform to
> WCAG 01 for their legacy pages and WCAG 02 for new content.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> That is an intriguing thought.  Have to ponder it a bit.  But that would also
> help ease the pain that anyone might feel about changing to 2.0 if they had
> done 1.0.
> 
>  
> Gregg
> 
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> 
>  
> 
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:54:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT