- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:04:29 -0500
- CC: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Tim, Those are important concerns. Of course we do want to encourage conformance to ATAG 2.0, but that is different than making a formal claim. In fact, trying to be push for formality may actually dissuade some developers because they might be afraid of real-world legal consequences if they make a formal claim that turns out to be erroneous. WCAG 2.0 takes the same optional approach to conformance claims. Cheers, Jan On 03/03/2010 8:58 AM, Boland Jr., Frederick E. wrote: > How would ATAG2.0 conformance be demonstrated, if not by making a conformance claim? > Why would offerers go to all the work of making a conformance claim if it's optional? Don't we want to encourage ATAG2.0 conformance? I hope this is put on a survey.. apologize if I'm missing something.. > Thanks and best wishes > Tim Boland NIST > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:12 PM > To: WAI-AUWG List > Subject: ATAG2:Clarifying that conformance claims are optional in B.2.1.1 > > Hi all, > > The current wording of B.2.1.1 links to the conformance claim section to > explain the concepts of included and excluded technologies with no > clarification that conformance claims are optional. I propose we add that: > > PROPOSED NEW WORDING: > > B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides authors with a > choice between web content technology options, then the following > information is provided for each option: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.1.1] > (a) General Information: general information about the accessibility of > the technology to end users; and > (b) For "Included Technologies": information on the accessible content > support features provided for that technology by the authoring tool; and > (c) For "Excluded Technologies": both a warning that choosing that > technology may result in web content accessibility problems and > information on alternative included technologies (if available). > NOTE: If a conformance claim is made, the claim cites the Included and > Exclude technologies. > > > CURRENT WORDING: > > B.2.1.1 Decision Support: If the authoring tool provides authors with a > choice between web content technology options, then the following > information is provided for each option: (Level A) [Implementing B.2.1.1] > (a) General Information: general information about the accessibility of > the technology to end users; and > (b) For "Included Technologies": for technologies included in a > conformance claim, information on the accessible content support > features provided for that technology by the authoring tool; and > (c) For "Excluded Technologies": for technologies excluded from a > conformance claim, both a warning that choosing that technology may > result in web content accessibility problems and information on > alternative included technologies (if available). > > > -- > (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. > jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060 > > Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) > Faculty of Information | University of Toronto > > -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. jan.richards@utoronto.ca | 416-946-7060 Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information | University of Toronto
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 15:04:58 UTC