RE: Accessibility requirement

WCAG 2.0 does have such a definition, and is in CR.  It should be a W3C rec within a year, so seems like the appropriate doc to reference.

As to your concerns related to WCAG itself, I'd be happy to follow up with you offline or on the WCAG list on those.

Thanks,
Cynthia

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:50 PM
To: Arthur Barstow
Cc: Cynthia Shelly; public-webapps
Subject: Re: Accessibility requirement

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> Marcos, Cynthia,
>
> Perhaps requirement #37 as currently written [1] is overly prescriptive.
>
> For example, rather than trying to enumerate the sub-requirements for the
> other language (i.e. the non-HTML language), there could just be a reference
> to a spec/doc that defines the requirements for a language to be accessible.
>
> Also, the last sentence appears to be a statement about a Widget instance
> (and not a requirement for a Widget UA) and hence should not be normative.
>
> Combining the above comments, I get:
>
> [[
> A conforming specification must specify that the language used to declare
> the user interface of a widget be either HTML or a language that is
> accessible as defined by [?SOME-WAI-RESOURCE?].
> ]]
>

I'm willing to point the Requirements doc to WCAG 1 or 2 if the group
wants me to. I personally don't agree with a lot of the things in WCAG
1 or 2, but if it's the best we have so be it. It would be helpful if
others with more experience in this area could provide some guidance
on how to proceed.


--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Friday, 1 August 2008 20:40:46 UTC