W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Evaluating an iframe-based website

From: Ramón Corominas <listas@ramoncorominas.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:18:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4F4E4FDF.1010409@ramoncorominas.com>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
CC: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi, Jonathan and all,

A Support Statement is not an option in this case. We at Technosite 
provide a Web accessibility certification consisting of a label where we 
specify the date, conforming pages and so on. At the moment, Spanish 
regulations are still based on WCAG 1.0, but they will be moved to WCAG 
2.0 in a few months (and subsequently our label will be based on WCAG 
2.0). Our certification has certain prestige here and is seen by our 
clients and by the Public Administration as a quite reliable guarantee 
of accessibility, so it is not possible -nor desirable- to lower the 
requirements.

Nevertheless, Spanish laws allow excluding pages from meeting the legal 
requirements if a "huge technical or financial effort is needed to fix 
the failures". Thus, our clients can have a technically wrong content 
that still meets the law. For example, a TV channel could meet the law 
requirements although most of the TV shows provided in its Web page had 
no audiodescription. But, of course, they are not technically WCAG 2.0 
compliant, so our label would reflect that for every page that includes 
one of these videos.

In conclusion, and regarding the "iframe case", we need to specify in 
the label what contents conform to WCAG 2.0 and what contents do not. If 
the "full page" requirement means that we cannot exclude any of the 
contents within the central iframe, we cannot provide any type of label, 
since there is no conforming page.

Regards,
Ramón.


Jonathan provided another possibility:

>> [Ramon wrote]
>> My interpretation is that I cannot then
 >> exclude the URI of the embedded content
 >> from the Conformance Declaration.
> 
> You could consider creating a WCAG Support Statement rather
 > than a conformance statement.  Depending on the requirements
 > or the laws you are trying to meet this can often be
 > a useful approach.
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:17:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:17:59 GMT