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

Re: Conformance Section wtih Edits incorporated

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:07:51 +1100
Message-ID: <16776.19335.586302.629146@jdc.local>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

This is a good proposal. My comments:

1. Substitute "content" for "sites" throughout, except where there is
   a very good reason to the contrary. The term "site" implies too
   many assumptions about the scope of a conformance claim.

2. It would be valuable to have a clearer rationale for distinguishing
   success criteria that fall under level 1, from success criteria
   that fall under level 2 by reason of paragraph 1 a. That is, a
   provision which increases access to some groups of users by making
   machine-readable ifnormation available to the user agent, can come
   under level 1 or level 2 and there is currently no general
   explanation offered of how this is, or ought to be, decided.

One suggestion would be that all information required to take
advantage of user agent features demanded by UAAG Level A, should be
at level 1 of WCAG 2.0; other machine-readable ifnormation should be
at level 2. Variations on this proposal are possible, and, naturally,
it is contingent on acceptance of the WCAG/UAAG proposal developed at
the face to face meeting, which I strongly endorse.

3. We need to clarify how the range of URI's, hence delivery units,
   can be specified in conformance claims. While it would be
   reasonable to leave this open-ended on the footing that anything
   which accurately specifies the URI's should suffice (metadata, an
   explicit list, a description of the resources), it would be helpful
   to provide at least some recognized and supported ways of declaring
   scope by URI/delivery unit.
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 03:08:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT