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

RE: [1.1] Exception for text equivalent (non-urgent)

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 13:09:16 +1100 (EST)
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0403051256110.16606-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>



On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Yvette P. Hoitink wrote:
>
> I hope to discuss this at a more appropriate time, when we are not so busy
> with the upcoming TR.

A few comments:

First, one of the unresolved issues surrounding the conformance scheme is
the extent to which those making conformance claims should be free to
define which parts of their content meet WCAG, either in written
conformance claims or metadata. This is still on our long-term agenda to
be resolved. Concerns have been expressed that conformance claims which
encompass all of a Web site except the interface through which a
transaction is to be completed, could be very confusing, as most of the
content is accessible but the crucial aspect of it (the transaction
completion) is not.

Depending on what we decide, it might be possible to claim that all of the
content at a site meets WCAG 2.0 except certain historical documents.

Secondly, there have been issues raised about the value of WCAG 2.0
metadata as a descriptive tool, with which to inform users of what content
is, or is not, likely to be accessible to them based on
conformance/non-conformance with WCAG 2.0 at a minimum level, or with
specific guidelines/levels that correspond to a user's particular needs.
To the extent that policy-oriented exclusions are written into the
guidelines, this diminishes their value as a means of reporting and
classification. It has been sometimes suggested that different rules
should apply to conformance logos and other directly human readable claims
of conformance, on the one side, and metadata-based conformance claims on
the other; though again, this has the potential to be misleading, a
problem which must be balanced against possible advantages.

Comments on any of the above issues are encouraged, on the mailing list or
at the point at which they are placed on a meeting agenda.
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 21:09:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC