W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2006

Re: How do you deal with false claims of accessibility conformance?

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:42:12 +0100
Message-ID: <44FA32F4.4040202@splintered.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
CC: Terry Dean <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>

Terry Dean wrote:

> Could someone please tell me how the W3C or WAI view websites that claim to
> conform to the WAI Guidelines when clearly they do not.

 From http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html

"Responsibility for accuracy of claims

Content providers are solely responsible for the use of these logos. 
Before using these logos as part of a conformance claim, we recommend 
that the provider be familiar with the Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines 1.0 and use a variety of review methods to ensure that any 
page using this logo meets the conformance level claimed. Providers 
should also ensure that anyone maintaining or updating the site is 
familiar with logo use, and either re-reviews the page or removes the 
logo from the page if they are unsure whether it still meets a specified 
conformance level."

I can't obviously speak for W3C/WAI, but I'd think that they're not 
overjoyed by inaccessible sites making false/inaccurate claims...but 
then again, they have no power to do anything about it, afaik.

  > How can a site claim WAI conformance to any priority level when the 
html and
> css do not pass validation?
> 
> Their claim is:
> 
> "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. All pages on the site have been
> reviewed and comply with most  priority 1 guidelines to the best of our
> knowledge." 

They only refer to priority 1. Validity of HTML/CSS falls under 
checkpoint 3.2 "Create documents that validate to published formal 
grammars" 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/wai-pageauth.html#tech-identify-grammar 
which is a priority 2 checkpoint. So - without now checking up on 
whether they do in fact follow all P1 points - the fact that their 
markup and stylesheet are riddled with errors doesn't invalidate their 
claim.

P
-- 
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 Sunday, 3 September 2006 01:42:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:25 GMT