- From: David Sloan <dsloan@paciellogroup.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 13:49:04 +0000
- To: RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi all I think Vivienne's write-up is a great starter. In addition to the last sentence which, for me, is the crux of the whole topic - the efficacy of accreditation in terms of improved experience for people with disabilities - here are a few more thoughts. One important area to consider is the role that the different WAI guidelines play in accreditation. Should an accessibility accreditation integrate conformance with different guideline-sets or stick to a single one? For example, many resources support some form of authoring capability, but as yet, there seems to be little demand for ATAG conformance statements. I heard a rather blunt phrase on the radio today from someone discussing a completely unrelated matter: "it's better to put up a fence at the top of the cliff than provide an ambulance at the bottom." It seemed to me that this is a great analogy for the focus on WCAG/508/other content accessibility guideline conformance at the expense of ATAG conformance (accepting the long journey taken to develop ATAG 2.0). Linking to EOWG's work on promoting ATAG as a critical aspect of accessibility quality assurance seems to be a very important research topic for accreditation. http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Outreach_for_ATAG_2.0 It might also be worth tying in this write-up with the Responsibilities for Web Accessibility work that WAI-Engage has done - i.e. if accreditation is implemented by an organisation on its own activity and output, who needs to be involved? http://www.w3.org/community/wai-engage/wiki/Accessibility_Responsibility_Breakdown Dave The Paciello Group.
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 13:49:33 UTC