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: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:22:32 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B05E01912@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
Cc: "WCAG-WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
And "results" (Loretta's term) means examining the page produced by the
user to see if that page contains alt text and/or synchronized
captions/audio descriptions as required by the conformance level
claimed?
 
And WCAG cares only to the extent that the resultant page conforms...
and that any widgets, controls, etc., on the producing page satisfy
WCAG?
 
John
 
 

"Good design is accessible design." 

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 

-----Original Message-----
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 11:40 AM
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 18:22:48 GMT

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