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 19:46:43 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060511194643.C7BD247BA5@mojo.w3.org>


Name: Greg Gay
Email: g.gay@utoronto.ca
Affiliation: ATRC UofT
Document: W2
Item Number: Conformance claims
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: GE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):


Re: Conformance notes.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/conformance.html#conformance-claims

The Note suggests that the default version of the content displayed (i.e. Web unit that is returned when no negotiation is conducted) is the one that must comply. This would mean that myself for example, as a fully able user with no content negotiation enabled, would be forced to view the most accessible version of a content unit,  despite, perhaps, a less accessible, more interactive, \"flashy\" version being more appropropriate for my needs. 

Proposed Change:
I think the second statement (in parentheses) \"...one of the negotiated forms must comply\"  makes more sense as the default here, with perhaps the added note that \"...the most accessible version is easily accessed should the primary version not be accessible\".  A common example is the Flash splash page that includes a link to an accessible HTML version of the same content.  In the initial  statement  it suggested that as a developer I would have to default to the HTML version of the page, with a link to the Flash version instead.  Developers and their clients will not agree to this, but they will agree to a link that leads to a more accessible version.. 
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 19:46:49 UTC

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