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 09:40:08 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0704120940s14e32872q48958fa3f62f2e9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I think it moves us more and more into the sphere of authoring tools and
ATAG. I would rather see someone evaluating such Web pages against ATAG
explicitly, and just evaluate the results for WCAG.

Loretta

On 4/12/07, Bailey Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov> wrote:
>
>  I think Don is right too, but I think the issue of control is quite
> separate from the need for a WCAG requirement to facilitate accessible
> content from user submission.  Maybe we can draw from UAAG for this?
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:13 AM
> *To:* Bailey Bruce
> *Cc:* WCAG-WG
> *Subject:* Re: Conformance, Aggregation and Captions Survey for 12 April
> 2007
>
>  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 16:40:29 GMT

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