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, 25 May 2006 17:44:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060525174454.1E37147B9F@mojo.w3.org>

Name: David MacDonald
Email: Befree@magma.ca
Affiliation: working group member/ consultant
Document: W2
Item Number: Conformance levels and the baseline
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
I think there are problems with the idea that someone can claim level 3 conformance if they do only 50% of the techniques that apply to their content. That means someone could claim Level 3 conformance and have an audio track that has a loud background when there is a Level 3 SC that specifically says don\'t do this.  I realize that some Level three items are very difficult. But that is what level 3 is all about - going above and beyond. (If some of our Level 3 SC are unrealistically difficult then let\'s remove those ones) On the other hand, if we are just providing level 3 as a way to encourage people to provide extra accessibility then it should not be a Level but rather a separate advisory section of our guidelines. I don\'t think we can allow people to say they have reached a level of conformance while blatantly while breaking the GL or SC in that level. I think it undermines the integrity of our Guidelines. I think it will be a source of much confusion and conflict in the public and among disability goups.

Proposed Change:
Require 100% of Level 3 SC that apply to the content to be met in order to meet Level 3. If there are some SC that the group identifies as unrealistically difficult then remove them to a separate document called something like \"going the extra mile.\" 
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2006 17:44:57 UTC

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