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

RE: Evaluating an iframe-based website

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:21:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4555122789a646116ced286a3e0429d1@mail.gmail.com>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Ramon,

> 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.

WCAG does encourage sites to indicate what success criteria are met even
if conformance is not met for a particular level.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#conformance-reqs

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramón Corominas [mailto:listas@ramoncorominas.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:19 AM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: WAI Interest Group
Subject: Re: Evaluating an iframe-based website

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 16:22:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 February 2012 16:22:28 GMT