- From: Wilco Fiers <w.fiers@accessibility.nl>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 14:25:10 +0100
- To: Kathy Wahlbin <kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com>, 'Kiran Kaja' <kkaja@adobe.com>, "'Velleman, Eric'" <evelleman@bartimeus.nl>, "public-wai-evaltf@w3.org" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Hello Kathy, That's a good idea. Although it seems to me that if you're going to check if something has the same information, that both the things you're looking at should be in the scope. Though that may be more a semantic discussion of what it means for something to be within the scope. Since content can be considered accessible if it is provided through an accessible alternative, the Flash object in your example might as well be part of the scope. Wilco ________________________________________ Van: Kathy Wahlbin [kathy@interactiveaccessibility.com] Verzonden: woensdag 4 januari 2012 13:34 Aan: 'Kiran Kaja'; 'Velleman, Eric'; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org Onderwerp: RE: EvalTF Technologies If there is an alternative version of the Flash that provides an equivalent experience then I think the evaluator should be able to restrict the scope of the review to just the alternative version. The evaluator should look at the Flash version and the alternative version to make sure they provide the same content and what mechanisms are in place to make sure the two version stay in synch. Often that is not the case. The same would true for the HTML and PDF content. Kathy Phone: 978.443.0798 Cell: 978.760.0682 Fax: 978.560.1251 KathyW@ia11y.com NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received. Thank you. -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Kaja [mailto:kkaja@adobe.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 5:03 AM To: Velleman, Eric; public-wai-evaltf@w3.org Subject: RE: EvalTF Technologies if the aim of the evaluation is to test for compliance to WCAG2, the evaluator definitely needs to include all technologies allowed by WCAG2 that are present on web pages. If not, the evaluation results may be pointless in a lot of cases. Kiran Kaja Accessibility Engineer Adobe Systems Europe +44 (0) 1628 590005 (Direct) 80005 (Internal) +44 (0) 78330 91999 (Mobile) Kkaja@adobe.com Twitter.com/kirankaja12 -----Original Message----- From: Velleman, Eric [mailto:evelleman@bartimeus.nl] Sent: 03 January 2012 23:24 To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org Subject: EvalTF Technologies Dear all, Discussion item 2: 3.7 Technologies used on the webpages. The technologies used on the website/webpage are important when determining the scope of the evaluation. If the website has an alternative for Flash content, does the evaluator look at both the Flash content (supposing there are WCAG2.0 techniques for Flash) and at the alternative content? What if the pages have both content in both pdf and html? Does the evaluator check both? That would enlarge the scope and thereby also the sample (and thus evaluation time). Kindest regards, Eric
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 13:29:10 UTC