W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 19:25:24 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060511192524.6DF3847BA5@mojo.w3.org>


Name: Greg Gay
Email: g.gay@utoronto.ca
Affiliation: ATRC UofT
Document: W2
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
There doesn\'t seem to be a place to comment on the Baseline Document, so I\'ll post it here:



-------

http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/baseline/

The potential for many baselines is possible, and each baseline will have an overall level of accessibility associated with it. For example, a baseline that includes only HTML 4, is going to be more universally accessible than a baseline that includes HTML 4, Flash, Java, and Javascript. For clients or developers using the latter baseline, we would essentially tell them that if their content made full use of the Flash, Java, and Javascript accessibility features, they can comply at Level 2 (hypothetically speaking). But, for a client who creates the same site that uses the first baseline (HTML 4 only), and has gone to the trouble of creating alternatives for their Flash,  Java, and Javascript content, will have created a more accessible site than the site that uses second baseline and does not have any alternative formats. What motivation would there be for the developer of the site using the first baseline, if they can just place all the technologies in the baseline, and forget about creating more accessibe alternative content. 



Proposed Change:
The solution to this may be associating some base accessibility value with a variety of standard baselines, baselines which remain non-normative, and evolve as technologies evolve. 
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 19:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:06 UTC