W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: WCAG 2.0 and scripting

From: Patrick Lauke <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:33:55 +0100
Message-ID: <2B0B7306F468E54D84D79904FA2A0140B2D223@ISD-EXV03.isdads.salford.ac.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> David Woolley

> WCAG compliance is often a contractual requirement (typically by 
> universities and public services).  I believe, in some 
> countries, it is 
> enshrined in legislation.  In these circumstances, people will be 
> reluctant to accept anything other than the existing, 
> approved, standards.

Absolutely. If it's written in the contract ("compliance with WCAG 1.0") or if you're operating under something (antiquated) like the BITV in Germany, then yes, suppliers can't simply say "oh, but we're working towards WCAG 2.0". The original question in this thread didn't specify this though.

> Incidentally, I take the view that accessibility should be 
> considered as 
> universal accessibility, and in the UK, I think that is government 
> policy ("the digital divide") even if there is no 
> legislation.

That would remain to be tested by case law. The argument would then be along the lines of "this site uses Javascript, and it has been tested and proven to work with all modern screen readers, but locks out users of older screen readers, or EMACspeak users on Linux, etc...is this discrimination?". I'd argue that it isn't, but that's my own take. It all depends on context, anyway. If it were a government website which offers essential information for citizens then the technical requirement bar should be set low.

Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor
Enterprise & Development
University of Salford
Room 113, Faraday House
Salford, Greater Manchester
M5 4WT

T +44 (0) 161 295 4779


Received on Thursday, 27 September 2007 08:31:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:36 UTC