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

RE: WCAG 1.0 - checkpoint 11.4, policy and parallel web sites

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 00:05:11 -0500
To: "'Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <ij@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <jbrewer@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000085665302@spamarrest.com>

As long as one of the N sites meets all the guidelines -- and it is the
version you get if you don't or can't do content negotiation - then it
should be fine.  

Else I think is would be a problem. 

 
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 Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:09 PM
To: ij@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; jbrewer@w3.org
Subject: Re: WCAG 1.0 - checkpoint 11.4, policy and parallel web sites


This could mean that we could have inaccessible web sites with "n" other
parallel web sites.
This could be good if contents are presented in different "version" by css
or xslt, but made "n" parallel sites - imho - means not support the "design
for all". I think that this point is one of the point that could be rewieved
in a wcag 1.0 second edition and/or with an integration in the cited note (a
wcag errata?)
----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Ian B. Jacobs"<ij@w3.org>
    Inviato: 02/09/04 20.50.37
    A: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>
    Cc: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
"jbrewer@w3.org"<jbrewer@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Re: WCAG 1.0 - checkpoint 11.4, policy and parallel web sites
      On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 03:07, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
    > Hi to all the group.
    > I hope this message isn't off topic.
    > 
    > This regards the WCAG 1.0 Reccomandation [1] and expecially the
    > checkpoint 11.4:
    > 
    > 11.4 If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page,
    > provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is
    > accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is
    > updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page. [Priority 1]
    
    [snip]
    
    > Discussing in web accessibility mailing lists, also with the
    > partecipation of some lawyers, as explained the checkpoint *could*
    > authorize - after best efforts - to create parallel web sites that is
a
    > group of "alternative page for every page".
    
    Yes, as far as I understand, that is true. Why is this problematic
    (other than for the reasons cited in the checkpoint and note)?
    
     _ Ian
    
    -- 
    Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
    Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare
la restante parte.]
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 05:05:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC