- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:03:20 -0500
- To: "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
ISSUE - 2 One AC Member thought that guideline 11 almost mandated using "W3C technologies" and they thought this should be more broadly generalized to encompass "technologies and specifications arrived at through an open industry consensus process, such as W3C specifications". They also felt that renditions using proprietary technologies may be justified by business considerations and not only as a "last resort when all other solutions fail." However, they did feel that in such situations the user should be able to select an accessible rendition based on open consensus standards. PROPOSED RESOLUTION: To clarify that the W3C technologies are specified because of their unique characteristics such as internal early review and approval for accessibility and built in accessibility considerations as well as the open industry consensus process. We would also clarify that in cases where proprietary or inaccessible technologies must be used (and these would include good business cases) that it was OK as long as an accessible alternative was provided. However, separate but equal, should only be used where there is a good reason. SPECIFIC WORDING: What are your thoughts?
Received on Monday, 26 April 1999 12:04:15 UTC