- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:23:22 -0700
- To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Carlos A Velasco'" <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>, "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 12:06 AM, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote: > I agree with Gregg. > The problem now in Europe is that in some countries (like Italy) some > part > of the government wanna create normative "section 508-like" and not > the full > receipt of the WCAG. Then _they_ should specify a conformance profile, and they should specify _which_ checkpoints over and above Core. No self-respecting organization is going to issue a content requirement that allows people to select items "a la carte" to implement. If they're going to make laws out of WCAG, they should select and require items in the extended set when they do it. Core will be the most important set. From there, I think the focus should be on telling potential adopters (governmental and institutional) to start with nothing less than Core, and add requirements from there. Core+ does not help. As far as 508 goes, I think we'd do well to create a Core+508 profile as an informative example. We could show that adopting our requirements and processes will allow authors and ER tools to state authoritatively, "this is 508", while still adopting the principles of good design that WCAG contains (and 508 leaves out). - m
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 18:23:27 UTC