W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Conformance Testing Proposal

From: Donald F. Evans <donaldfevans@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:57:46 -0400
To: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <407408DA.20302@aol.com>

Thank you so much for your POC.  It is very helpful.  I agree totally 
with your approach.

Chris Ridpath wrote on 4/5/2004, 11:25 AM:


 > My proposal is that we state, for each technology, the things that
 > must be
 > done in order for a page to claim conformance. This is possible and
 > practical and is what page authors require.
 >
 > For example we require that, in HTML, all IMG elements have an ALT
 > attribute. If any IMG element does not have an ALT attribute then the
 > page
 > cannot claim conformance.
 >
 > The list of requirements would be subject to periodic change by the
 > WAI. For
 > example in 2004 we require a d-link for any IMG element that has a
 > LONGDESC
 > attribute. In 2005 or 2006 as the LONGDESC is better supported the d-link
 > requirement would be dropped. As better tests for semantic content are
 > developed they could be added as requirements.
 >
 > The initial list of requirements would likely not cover 100% of
 > accessibility problems but it would improve over time and would be much
 > better than the current situation. Simply because we can not define all
 > accessibility requirements now is not a good reason for being vague.
 >
 > A clear list of requirements would ensure that page authors know exactly
 > what to put in their web pages. It would increase web accessibility.
 >
 > Clear requirements would mean that people, or machines, could actually
 > test
 > for compliance with the guidelines. Many authors want to do the right
 > thing
 > but don't know how.
 >
 > As a starting point, here's what I think the WCAG 2 requirements for HTML
 > are:
 > 
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/servlet/ShowGuide?name=wcag-2-0-html-techs.xml&lang=eng 

 >
 >
 > I'm sure that this list has errors and omissions but it proves that we
 > can
 > do this.
 >
 > We can, and must, clearly describe what the guidelines mean.
 >
 > Cheers,
 > Chris
 >
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 09:58:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT