W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: Swedish Handicap Institute adopts WCAG 1.0

From: Robert Neff <rneff@bbnow.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:34:23 -0600
To: "Cynthia Waddell" <cynthia.waddell@psinetcs.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AHENJNNCANEHAIIBJNDGOEJECEAA.rneff@bbnow.net>
Cynthia, do you know:

1.  What concept of enforcement do they have?
2.  Do they have legislative backing?
3.  Are they adopting the WAI guidelines as policy?

Cheers, rob

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]  On
Behalf Of Cynthia Waddell
Sent:	Monday, February 05, 2001 11:02 AM
To:	w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject:	Swedish Handicap Institute adopts WCAG 1.0


FYI,
I have not been able at this time to independently verify the enclosed
announcement.

Cynthia Waddell

-----Original Message-----
From: margita.lundman@hi.se [mailto:margita.lundman@hi.se]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 6:11 AM
To: eeurope-pwd@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [eeurope-pwd] Promotion of an Accessible Web in Sweden


Hello,
Since 1997 the Swedish Handicap Institute, SHI, has
published recommended guidelines for accessibility
of the web in the Swedish Society. SHI has now adopted
the WAI guidelines (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0)
in order to promote an accessible web in a manner which fully
complies with international standards, and with the eEurope Action
Plan. This was announced in a Press Release of January 26, 2001.
Best regards,
Margita Lundman
---------------------------------------
Cynthia D. Waddell
Sr. Consultant/Subject Matter Expert
PSINet Consulting Solutions
Accessibility Center of Excellence

Raleigh, NC: 1-800-547-5602 ext. 136
Sacramento, CA: 1-800-408-3567

San Jose Office:
PO BOX 5456
San Jose, California  95150-5456
http://www.icdri.org/cynthia_waddell.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Paul Davis
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:21 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Bobby rating over rated


Hi Kynn,

Quote
The problem we face is that "Bobby Compliant" may become more
important than "accessible."  (Note that I think there is also a
danger with "WCAG Compliant" in the same way, but at the moment that
risk is smaller than the Bobby problem.)

In other words, people get confused and they think that what they are
trying to do is get a Bobby logo for their front page, when really
what they -should- do is try to make their web pages more accessible.

Pleasantly surprised to note we are singing from the same hymn sheet on
this, ( did I really use that expression? sorry) Ten-20 recently lost out on
a lucrative contract/web build because I stupidly mentioned in the tender
that a Bobby compliant logo was not a vital requirement and did not always
signify accessibility anyway. The contract went to poptel whose own website
is totally inaccessible. Hypocrisy rules it appears. I am totally convinced
that well meaning people in large charities and Government circles are too
convinced of the infallibility of Bobby.

Charley Brown zig zag smiles
Paul Davis
www.ten-20.com The portal website for disabled people and associated
professionals.
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 12:32:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT