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: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:14:56 -0400
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "'Bailey Bruce'" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: "'WCAG-WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002301c77d26$191ed9f0$4b5c8dd0$@ca>
Yes it's a weird new world where web content is actually an authoring tool
to make other web content. its like that old mirror trick where you look
into a mirror with a mirror and it never ends.

 

It brings us up against a philosophical decision that we have not dealt
with. "What happens when the web content is actually an authoring tool?" Do
we farm it out to ATAG, or do we deal with it in WCAG. Whether or not it is
under ATAG or WCAG, one thing I think is certain, the resulting output is
"content" and as such should be covered by WCAG. And "someone" has to be
responsible for it being accessible if there is a WCAG sticker or
conformance claim on the page containing it. I don't think that just saying
that the Chrome is compliant is not enough.

 

David MacDonald

 

access empowers people...

        ...barriers disable them...

 

www.eramp.com

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 12:40 PM
To: Bailey Bruce
Cc: WCAG-WG
Subject: Re: Conformance, Aggregation and Captions Survey for 12 April 2007

 

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 17:15:11 GMT

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