- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:31:26 -0700
- To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
- Cc: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
At 01:39 PM 9/25/2000 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >Good news indeed. > >As a practical matter, though, what do I do now when e.g. judging if a page with side by side text and no alternative page meets triple A. >Yes or No? I don't know if there is a clear answer. This is an obvious "bug" in WCAG 1.0 (and as William said, we are planning to fix it in WCAG 2.0, speaking as someone on the WCAG working group). Right now, I believe that "until user agents" requires the reader of the WCAG document (or the person doing the testing) to make their own judgments about how far technology has advanced. So it is really your call. (This is why I call it a "bug" in WCAG 1.0!) In my opinion, I would say that side-by-side text with no alternative page/representation does not pass a strict interpretation of triple A, but then I can't ever imagine designing a practical site for full triple-A compliance anyway. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com/ Director of Accessibility, Edapta http://www.edapta.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ AWARE Center Director http://www.awarecenter.org/ Accessibility Roundtable Web Broadcast http://kynn.com/+on24 What's on my bookshelf? http://kynn.com/books/
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 16:45:46 UTC