- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:19:09 +0000
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Martin Stehle wrote: >> If one feels the need to display a "badge", aren't WCAG A, AA, And >> AAA the most informative and "impartial"? > > For who? "Claims are not verified by W3C" you can read on e.g. > http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1AAA-Conformance > And Bobby's badges aren't verified either...only an automated validator that can't even guarantee that the most essential priority 1 issues are correctly addressed. The W3C badges are at least honest in that they don't claim verification. > And: the scope of the icon? For the whole site? Or for the single > page? That's where a site's accessibility statement comes in. > And: In WCAG there are no test guidelines, so putting the WCAG > icon is based on a subjective decision. Bobby's test guidelines are just the same, as the manual checks need to still be performed by a human being (subjective decision) before being able to put the badge on. -- Patrick H. Lauke __________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __________________________________________________________ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 27 January 2006 18:19:21 UTC