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

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

From: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:58:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4138304C0016A103@ms001msg.mail.fw> (added by postmaster@ms001msg.fastwebnet.it)
To: <lguarino@adobe.com>
Cc: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <jbrewer@w3.org>

Hi Loretta,

Are we really proposing modifications to WCAG 1.0 at this point? Forbidding
other solutions seems like we are narrowing the original guideline.

Roberto Castaldo:
I'm not proposing any modification in WCAG 1.0; I simply see that the
checkpoint 11.4, as it is (and as many others in WCAG 1.0), can be read and
interpretated in many ways, and in most cases such interpretations can take
developers away from the right way. As Roberto Scano said, we could start
and fix the phrase "after the best efforts..."... I say fix because it is
not objective and may lead to strage situations.

Or are we arguing that WCAG2 should take a narrower stance?

Roberto Castaldo:
I do hope that WCAG 2.0 will be able to give a strong and unique signal, and
that its success criteria will result much more clear and easier to follow
rather than being interpretated; generally I think that, if necessary, WCAG
2.0 may even narrow the WCAG 1.0 guideline... in my personal opinion, in
this situation WCAG 2.0 should explicitally say that, while isolated
alternative pages can represent a good solution, any "alternative site" is
not allowed, and this comes up to technical and ethical reasons. 

Best regards,

Roberto Castaldo
www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator
IWA/HWG Member
Icq 178709294
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 19:03:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:50 UTC