W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2005

RE: WCAG 2.0 Checklist

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 22:40:37 +0200
To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00af01c583fd$4d56b5e0$0200a8c0@rsnbiwa>



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:29 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 Checklist



We have tried to word the SC so that you Passed if you did not use the
technology.   In the past when NA was a choice it was much abused and used
when the technology was present but the rater felt that it shouldn't need to
conform.   

Perhaps the form generally should be "Any xxx are yyyy."  Then it is true if
there is no xxx. 
  
Roberto Scano:
Mmm... I think this could be ambiguous. For example:

"1.1 L3 SC1: For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined transcript of
captions and audio descriptions of video is available."

If I read this SC, I cannot flag the checkbox if there is no prerecored
multimedia content.
I undrestand your example, but I think that - also for migration from WCAG
1.0 and conformance with other WAI rec. - we should mantain the three
solutions: YES - NO - N/A.
This, IMHO.

Roberto Scano
IWA/HWG Member
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 20:40:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT