W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2003

Re: Checkpoints 1.1 and 10.1

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 17:28:07 +1000
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
To: michael.virant@dse.vic.gov.au
Message-Id: <2B6FD0BA-D929-11D7-9FFF-000A958826AA@sidar.org>

If you decide (and there is no decision yet from the working group, so 
you have to decide for yourself or ask someone to decide for you) that 
user agents do allow this, then you can open pop-up windows without 
informing the user. In my opinion you should not do it without 
informing the user anyway. I prefer the information to be visible, for 
reasons I argued already this week on this list.

Which mailing list did you go through? W3C maintains a lot  of them.

With all due respect to Gian (or whoever wrote the text that is on that 
site), I think the interpretation you refer to is wrong. Checkpoints 
don't over-ride each other, they are atomic requirements. If one is not 
met, then the content cannot sensibly claim to be in conformance with 
WCAG triple-A (since that is defined as meeting every checkpoint). For 
example the fact that DHS chooses to use a product which apparently 
does not allow them to meet a checkpoint means they cannot meet the 
checkpoint, not that they can claim they do because it is someone 
else's fault. (This isn't an accessibility question, its a basic logic 

For PDF, if the thing can be transformed to HTML of the required 
accessibility level using an automatic translation, and you provide a 
link to that service, then it clearly meets the requirements. If it 
doesn't then the assessment is a whole separate piece of work. (Of 
course if it can be transformed and you have done that to test its 
accessibility, why not also make the HTML version available - PDF is 
great for printing, but dreadful for online use in many people's 

(All in my opinion, and being also a Working group member)


On Thursday, Aug 28, 2003, at 16:36 Australia/Sydney, 
michael.virant@dse.vic.gov.au wrote:

> 10.1 - Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do 
> not
> cause pop-ups or other windows to appear
> and do not change the current window without informing the user.  
> Priority 2
> Given that user agents now DO ALLOW users to turn off spawned windows 
> (eg Opera 7) is this checkpoint met when a new window is spawned
> provided that the user is informed (eg as a TITLE="This link opens in 
> a new window" attr in the A tag and information placed  to the right 
> of the link
>  on screen)?
> REASON we are aiming for AA compliance and together with PDF content 
> with no text alternative (checkpoint 1.1), 10.1 is the only other 
> barrier.
> I've been through the w3.org accessibility mail list and the question 
> of accessible PDFs is not answered with any clear authority.
> The following site 
> http://hnb.dhs.vic.gov.au/ds/disabilitysite.nsf/pages/aboutsite#awd
> claims AAA conformance having PDFs with no text alternative - is the 
> "qualification"
> provided in the above link valid (written by a member of the WAI 
> Accessibility Guidelines working group)?
> If we were to ape their information provided and functionality could 
> we likewise make the same claim to conformance to 1.1?
> Regards
> Michael Virant
> michael.virant@dse.vic.gov.au
Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2003 03:28:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:25 UTC