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

RE: Missing criteria from WCAG 2.0?

From: Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG) <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:50:43 +0100
To: <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200512031147281.SM01256@Inbox>

Iso docs are not public. You must buy them or you must Be member of a national ISO office for have access to WD.

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Bailey, Bruce"<Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
    Inviato: 03/12/05 17.07.05
    A: "Gregg Vanderheiden"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)"<rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: RE: Missing criteria from WCAG 2.0?
    
    > ISO 16071 is now 9142-171 and is heading for Candidate Draft. 
    > It is originally based upon (and is harmonized with) HFES 200.3
    > Both are software accessibility guidelines. 
    
    Do either of those have anything in the public?
    
    > StickyKeys and functions like it are supposed to be done in OS
    > and honored by applications.  
    
    Yes, that is how it is *suppose* to work.
    
    > But if an [application?] overrides the OS then it inherits the 
    > responsibility for providing the OS functions. 
    
    Can Java applets override the OS in this regard?
    If so, shouldn’t there be a check for this in WCAG?
    
    

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]
Received on Saturday, 3 December 2005 16:50:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT