- From: Yeliz Yesilada <yesilady@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:34:09 +0000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, "Sean Owen" <srowen@google.com>, "Phil Archer" <parcher@icra.org>, "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
I agree. it's important to do the right thing even if it is not needed for the compliance. The focus should be improving user experiences for both groups rather than just focusing on compliance. Regards, Yeliz. On 20 Feb 2008, at 14:57, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:50:48 +0100, Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi> wrote: > >> Secondly there is value in stating that compliance with the Best >> Practices produces accessibility benefits that do not assist with >> complicance [because they have been dropped as untestable in WCAG >> 2.0, >> or for any other reason] > > I agree. WCAG 2.0 compliance, while useful, is not the only or > definitive measure of accessibility, any more than compliance to > mobile BP is the definitive measure of mobile friendliness. They > are just references to a framework document we have available that > makes it easier to disucss the goals in concrete terms. We should > recognise that, and point out how you can improve user experiences > in both areas at the same time. > > cheers > > Chaals > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group > je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk > http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com >
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2008 15:34:15 UTC