- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 06:41:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- cc: <GV@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Implementors can make assertions in metadata about what they have done regardless of whether they meet a given conformance level, and regardles of whether we make it easy or hard. I believe there are benefits to making it easy - one notable one being the fact that people can then query for information that is useful to them, because it meets the personal profile they suspect will work - which is probably not a conformance level. Some things that are level-A conformant are really horrid to use for almost everyone since they don't do anything but the level-A minimum. Some things miss out on level-A since they are completely inaccessible to some group, but are fantastic for some other group. There are also implementations out there that do this. To some extent it seems to me to be in the interrplay between the WCAG and EO groups to talk about how to get people to make good uses of this and be aware of the bad things that can be done (the equivalent of the stupid browser-sniffing stuff that still gets used to exclude people from access). cheers Chaals On Wed, 22 May 2002, Jason White wrote: Would the suggestion then be that implementors ought to be permitted to make assertions in metadata regarding the checkpoints which they have satisfied, even if they haven't met the minimal requirements of conformance? Presumably a tool which reads the metadata could distinguish between accessibility-related assertions not amounting to a conformance claim, but which might still be helpful to the user, and an actual assertion of conformance to the guidelines. -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 06:41:43 UTC