W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Conformance, Aggregation and Captions Survey for 12 April 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:13:20 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0704120713w14b0fc82u7f92602ec669bb30@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think Don is right, that to the degree that these sorts of exceptions are
allowed at all, they would be covered by what it means to be controlled.
That isn't spelled out in these proposals, and the discussion in the
subgroup had moved away from these issues, which seem specific to
user-contributed content, as we wrestled with issues like web applications
that can display content from arbitrary URLs, etc.

If this would affect your response, please note it in the comments. Feel
free to suggest modifications or new proposals.

Loretta

On 4/11/07, Bailey Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov> wrote:
>
>
> For sake of argument, let us assume we go with the most liberal (i.e.,
> potentially least accessible) of the proposals:
> <blockquote>
> 1. Conforms at level 1 where controlled
> 2. No 3rd party content is controlled
> </blockquote>
>
> Is there still the expectation (for WCAG 2.0 Single A claim) that the
> aggregator explicitly provide a mechanism for the 3rd party content to
> be accessible (even if it is not forced).  For example, if an aggregator
> allows uploading of photos, must they provide a text field for ALT
> value?  If an aggregator allows uploading of video, must they provide a
> means to provide synchronized captions?  If so, is this a separate SC or
> part of the conformance scoping?
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 14:13:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:50 GMT