W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: link to us: Is there a recommendation to provide a graphic for external linking? if so where?

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:46:08 +0000
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, tina@greytower.net
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Message-Id: <202176BE-4AB8-11D8-8A8C-0003939B5AD0@btinternet.com>

Chaals,

for goodness sake 'please' formulate a proposal for WCAG.
isn't that what my suggestions re: AAA conformance are?
I posted the same issue to GL, a few hours later than IG, once I had a 
better feel for the responses,
but haven't yet seen a response.

thanks

On Monday, January 19, 2004, at 06:19  pm, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> Don't ask me what WAI may advocate - I can tell you what they do 
> advocate because they are advocating it so it isn't really news, and I 
> can tell you what I, as a single participant, think they should 
> advocate. I can even often tell you what Sidar advocates WAI do - we 
> have a group that discusses points we think are interesting in 
> Spanish, for people who cannot otherwise follow the development of WAI 
> specs and provide their input.
>
> It seems to me clear that there is a case for providing a visual 
> identifier for your site as well as a clear text name. This might be 
> used as a "favicon" (horrible word), used to provide clear and 
> consistent style, and so forth.
>
> Making this available for others to link to your site would be a 
> helpful thing to do. In my opinion WAI is perfectly able to say "this 
> is a key requirement". Other opinions are likely to include that this 
> is attempting to restrict people's legal right to dispose of their 
> property (in this case such an image) as they see fit. There are also 
> likely to be others besides easyJet who will only permit use of the 
> icon under certain conditions (for that matter, have a look at the 
> conditions under which people are entitled to use the WAI conformance 
> icons, bobby icons, W3C validator icons, etc...).
>
> So I can't predict what WAI will end up saying in this case. But I can 
> predict that if some summary of this discussion isn't presented as a 
> proposal to the relevant working group - in this case the WCAG group I 
> think - there is not likely to be any impact on what WAI advocates.
>
> just my 2 cents worth
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On 19 Jan 2004, at 19:14, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>
>> Chaals,
>>
>> perhaps I should make it clear at this stage (again) that peepo.co.uk 
>> is dedicated to the public domain
>> http://commoncontent.org/catalog/web/educational/594/
>> this means that all the graphics are freely useable by anyone for any 
>> purpose.
>> peepo.com is used as a bridge to the broader world, and this is far 
>> from ideal ~:"
>>
>> Is it possible that WAI might advocate:
>> public domain link graphics for AAA
>> Royalty free link graphics for AA
>> Restrictive trademark for A
>>
>> well perhaps that's a little too much detail, but you seem to suggest 
>> that
>> royalty free may not be good enough, and that trademarks really don't 
>> get us far down the accessibility route.
>>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
> charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
>
>

Jonathan Chetwynd
http://www.peepo.co.uk
"It's easy to use"
Received on Monday, 19 January 2004 14:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC