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

RE: examples of sites with good accessibility

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:43:35 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCB4CA132.ABD1A97D-ON8625720C.006EA5B4-8625720C.0071C867@us.ibm.com>
be careful in how much faith you are putting in this list.  It's just 
that, people spending their "volunteer" time in responding.  It has taken 
years for the WCAG 2.0 working group to reach consensus to produce working 
drafts.  Why do you think this list could reach consensus on example good 

When participating in some web competitions, where sites were submitted 
for  "judging" (see note 1 Knowbility) of their accessibility compliance, 
even 5 experienced judges with years of experience in accessibility, many 
of them having been part of the original WCAG 1.0 working group (see note 
2),  had a hard time in reaching consensus on the particular sites being 
judged.  The "judges" have reduced that gap by using a consistent 
methodology and consistent tools.  And now even have a better process in 
understanding each judges' position on an issue and why they were 
different that the other judges' position.  All these have reduced the 
differences of opinion, but there still remained some difference of 

This list has had none of this "maturing" process, its just an interest 

There is no working group in WAI tasked with this requirement, BUT, there 
is an attempt to collect best practices and document them in the 
techniques for WCAG (see note 3).  So, if you built a commercial site out 
of these "best practices" example - then you would have a "good example 
good luck,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center

Note 1 Knowbility: 
Note 2 Original WCAG working Group: 
Note 3 WCAG 2.0 Techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-GENERAL/
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 20:43:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:35 UTC