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

RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up

From: Bailey Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:57:11 -0400
Message-ID: <23EB0B5A59FF804E9A219B2C4EF3AE3DA48823@Access-Exch.Access-Board.gov>
To: "Andi Snow-Weaver" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> Even if we can't make this fail now, I am uncomfortable with this
being the technique we rely on.

I am still hoping for some contemporary examples of a well crafted
search (based on non-conforming content) failing when conforming
alternative are readily available (from an index page for example).

> Search engine algorithms can change.

Granted, we do not want WCAG 2.0 sites held hostage to a possibly
capricious WWW search engine.  But it sure is convenient to have Google
as a benchmark!

> So I don't want my conformance claim to be based on something I can't
control that might turn up a different result in the future.

I do not quite follow this logic behind this concern.  As the site owner
-- the entity claiming conformance -- do you not have control over the
search engine provided for your site?  Ensuring that *your* search
engine *continues* to turn up your accessible versions would just be
part of the requirements as your search engine behavior was revised.
Why is this not something you could control?  Or control at least as
well as other content that goes up *after* your initial conformance
claim.
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 14:55:09 GMT

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