- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:57:09 +0100
- To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>
- Cc: "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:50:48 +0100, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote:
> Secondly there is value in stating that compliance with the Best
> Practices produces accessibility benefits that do not assist with
> complicance [because they have been dropped as untestable in WCAG 2.0,
> or for any other reason]
I agree. WCAG 2.0 compliance, while useful, is not the only or definitive
measure of accessibility, any more than compliance to mobile BP is the
definitive measure of mobile friendliness. They are just references to a
framework document we have available that makes it easier to disucss the
goals in concrete terms. We should recognise that, and point out how you
can improve user experiences in both areas at the same time.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 14:58:25 UTC