W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2006

WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:28:23 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA793@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is feedback with regard to:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/11/conformance-revs.html

The document is really good, my hat is off to the folks pulling this together.  It is hard work.

I find this tweaked version (as compared to early last week) to be more
readable, and the ordering of the CC seems to flow more logically.
(Admittedly, this is probably due as much to my having read it a few
more times.)

Associating each CC with a number still seems somewhat arbitrary to me.  Given all the other numbering involved, it gets confusing.  Something like CC-AeWT is less obscure than referring to CC-1.  (Not that CC-AeWT is intuitive to the uninitiated, but still.)  My comments in the survey reflect this.

I think there is something missing from the Conformance Proposal in that the most accessible web sites will use certain technology but *not* rely upon them.  That is, the technology will be used, quite probably to good effect, but deliberately *not* in the baseline.  WCAG 2.0 does nothing, as far as I can tell, to reward or honor this desirable best practice.

WCAG 1.0 gave explicit credit for supporting text-only browsers.  As best I can tell, providing robust Lynx compatibility does not satisfy any Success Criteria with WCAG 2.0.  Two good examples of what I mean are CSS and NOFRAMES.

WCAG 1.0 had Priority 1 Checkpoint 6.1:  "Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets."

There is lots of "graceful degradation" in WCAG 2.0, and plenty of applicability for making appropriate accessible use of style sheets, but nothing that goes as far as 6.1 -- not even as a Level 3 SC.

A similar line of reason lies to NOFRAMES.  If frame sets are in the baseline, there is no call for NOFRAME content.  I remind folks of this opinion from Gregory Rosmaita:
<blockquote>
the only way to ensure alternate browsing in a non-visual environment is to mandate the provision of robust NOFRAMES content, and THAT my friends, is a screaming, flaming, indisputable P1
</blockquote>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006JulSep/0094.html

It is bad form to complain without offering remedy.  I therefor propose CC-Gold (CC-9 if the numbers stick):

CC-9 Above and Beyond:  Content providers are encouraged to delineate any advisory techniques or other best practices they have implemented on their site.

Editorial comments:

Web page is used as an example of what is meant by a Web page?

<blockquote>
Example 2: A Web page including all embedded images and media.
Example 2: An HTML page including any and all embedded images and media.
</blockquote>

Title of file (WCAG 2.0) is ambiguous.
 
Style of link to "Understanding Conformance Claims" immediately following "Conformance claims" is off.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 11:28:54 GMT

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