W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: WCAG formalization (rewriting WCAG HTML techniques as automatable rules)

From: Vicente Luque Centeno <vlc@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 23:11:15 +0200 (CEST)
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505292300530.11461@violin.it.uc3m.es>

Thanks John,

In fact, my initial publication [1] was for WCAG 1.0 but I am happy to say 
that it was not difficult to upgrade to WCAG 2.0 :-). Thanks to Wendy for 
the suggestion :-).

So, my suggestion (for the long term) is, even further that this concrete 
set of rules indeed, that people would probably do right if they start 
using formalized expressions for exchanging ideas about what WCAG mean or 
not maybe combined with those "ambiguous" paragraphs. I know this is not 
possible for the whole WCAG, but I would be happy to reduce ambiguity to a 
minimum.

Yes, I know not everybody knows about XQuery, but many of them can be just 
simple XPath expressions.

Best regards.

Vicente Luque Centeno
Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc

On Sun, 29 May 2005, John M Slatin wrote:

> Vicente Luque Centeno wrote:
>
> <blockquote>
> In order to have better WCAG rules for automated tools, I recently published [1]. They are just a set of XPath/XQuery based expressions that rewrite WCAG in a more automatable and less fuzzy way.
>
> Now I have upgrade those rules to WCAG 2.0, and I have published them at [2] (plus some comments). I would be pleased to receive your comments/feedback. It would be nice to have no misinterpretation on WCAG (we would not have different tools' interpretations). I also think that these rules + a XQuery engine + some preferences for personalizing subjectivity + some little integration code could be enough to build an accessibility evaluation tool.
> </blockquote>
>
> Thank you very much for this effort.   Please be aware, however, that WCAG 2.0 is *not* a formal W3C Recommendation.  It is very much a work in progress and the guidelines and success criteria are subject to change.  It is not appropriate to treat the current working draft (http://www.w3.org/tr/wcag20) as a normative document.
>
> Experiments like yours may help the WCAG Working Group identify places where we need to clarify our success criteria.
>
> John Slatin
>
>
> The current
>
> "Good design is accessible design"
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Senior Accessibility Specialist
> RampWEB, Inc.
> phone +1.512.266.6189 email jslatin@rampweb.com
> www.rampweb.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Vicente Luque Centeno
> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 8:55 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: WCAG formalization (rewriting WCAG HTML techniques as automatable rules)
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> In order to have better WCAG rules for automated tools, I recently published [1]. They are just a set of XPath/XQuery based expressions that rewrite WCAG in a more automatable and less fuzzy way.
>
> Now I have upgrade those rules to WCAG 2.0, and I have published them at [2] (plus some comments). I would be pleased to receive your comments/feedback. It would be nice to have no misinterpretation on WCAG (we would not have different tools' interpretations). I also think that these rules + a XQuery engine + some preferences for personalizing subjectivity + some little integration code could be enough to build an accessibility evaluation tool.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1] http://www.www2005.org/cdrom/docs/p1146.pdf
> [2] http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc/wai/wcag20formal.html
>
> Vicente Luque Centeno
> Dep. Ingeniería Telemática
> Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
> http://www.it.uc3m.es/vlc
>
Received on Sunday, 29 May 2005 21:11:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:21 GMT