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

RE: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:07:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5130FA7A0@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Emphasis added:

> We set it up so that there is no ***barrier*** to people saying whatever else they want to say about their pages.

One problem is that, as far as I can tell, WCAG 2.0 does not provide any ***incentive*** for implementing advisory techniques.  (Neither did WCAG 1.0, but then WCAG 1.0 triple A was challenging enough.)

It may well be inappropriate to shoe horn this kind of affirmation into the conformance claims.  But I did want to raise the possibility.

There is also my concern that the *most* accessible sites will *use* AeWT technologies (like frameset) but *not* have them in the baseline (and therefore not *rely* on them).  The subtly of this best practice is not captured IMHO by the current conformance model (and my CC-Gold idea may not touch resolve it either).

I brought this up a few months ago and no one has yet disabused me of the notion.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006JulSep/0083.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2006JulSep/0088.html

It is not a show stopper by any means

> We want to allow and encourage people to go beyond. 

Agreed.  What are we doing exactly to encourage people to go beyond?  (Besides the Advisory Techniques in the Understanding document?  Or is that enough?)
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 17:08:16 GMT

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