W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > December 2009

Re: RGAA (was RE: @summary in the wild)

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 01:09:55 +0000
Message-ID: <4B219BE3.5090004@splintered.co.uk>
To: aurelien.levy@free.fr
CC: stephane deschamps <stephane.deschamps@orange-ftgroup.com>, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 10/12/2009 23:46, aurelien.levy@free.fr wrote:
> summary attribut is requiered only for data table and we expect to change the guidelines to limit its use only on complex data table.
>
> RGAA will be frequently updated specialy when ARIA will become official recommandation, it's a suite of unit test to verify conformity to wcag 2.0 (specially needed by the public services to verify that the webagency is really doing her job correctly when the tender target a wcag compliant website)

Ah, j'ai trouvé les documents en question ;)
http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/rgaa-accessibilite

So, if I understand it correctly, RGAA is a set of your own normative 
tests, tied to specific technologies (doing things like mandating actual 
attributes, like alt for images and summary for data tables), which you 
then match up to WCAG 2.0 success criteria? It's basically a tightly 
defined subset of possible techniques (as there may exist a theoretical 
infinite number of techniques, as long as they pass the SC) that you 
require authors to adhere to? I can understand the benefit of this for 
large-scale conformance testing, but you're really then just testing 
conformance to RGAA, not to WCAG 2.0 (as there are certainly other 
techniques, not mandated in RGAA's test appendix of the WCAG 2.0 
techniques document, which nonetheless pass the SC).

Sorry, not being difficult here, just making sure I understand the 
purpose of RGAA (and to clarify that WCAG 2.0's original intent is not 
to make any statements as to required or not required attributes...only 
the SCs matter, and the techniques are merely informative).

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 | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 01:10:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:16:07 GMT