- From: <stephane.deschamps@orange-ftgroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:50:52 +0100
- To: "'Patrick H. Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
- Cc: "'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>
You are right, Patrick. (tu lis le français ?) :) The implicit assumption is that sites are going to be mostly based on HTML. Each control point is either conforming, non-conforming, or non-applicable. The RGAA enables you to say you can't apply this or that rule according to the actual page (WCAG2 sense) content. Say for instance you're doing RIA: then many criteria will just be non-applicable. So yes, RGAA is a subset, and it makes attributes mandatory whereas WCAG2 is more an expression of technically-agnostic principles. But it's much more useful for public services than the 'theoretical' points on accessibility that the WCAG2 make, as we all know accessibility has to be put into practice by people who are not specialists. -- Kind regards, Stéphane Deschamps Orange-France Telecom Group / IT Accessibility -----Message d'origine----- De : Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] Envoyé : vendredi 11 décembre 2009 02:10 À : aurelien.levy@free.fr Cc : stephane deschamps; John Foliot; HTML Accessibility Task Force; W3C WAI-XTECH; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Objet : Re: RGAA (was RE: @summary in the wild) 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/ ______________________________________________________________ ********************************* This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited. Messages are susceptible to alteration. France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified. If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender. ********************************
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 07:51:41 UTC