RE: 4.1 Alternate 2

Lisa Wrote:
  I think we should exclude any content that is not created or controlled 
by the web site owners.

I don't think we can do that exactly.   It leaves a great big OEM loophole.
That is, I just create a site and subcontract content.   Now it doesn't need
to be accessible.     Or rather,  it meets accessibility guidelines even
though the content doesn't..... 	

I see where you are trying to get to.   And that may be the direction of an
answer.  But we need to be very careful.

If you had said "some" instead of "all" maybe.... 


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Lisa Seeman (by way of Wendy A Chisholm <>)
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:58 AM
Subject: RE: 4.1 Alternate 2

  I think we should exclude any content that is not created or controlled 
by the web site owners. For example, email archives, and customer 
testimonials, quotes - but I think the concept of "review" takes that into 
consideration. - we could clarified this in the preamble.

However in terms of legacy pages the burden of  reediting old work holds 
true for valid markup, unique decodable, and dependent technologies. All of 
these guidelines can be completely impractical to retrofit on fast amount 
of problematic pages. Most  WCAG 01 Single A compliant sites are written in 
invalid HTML. Many would have to be pulled down and redone from scratch to 
compile to WCAG 02 A.  Perhaps it makes more sense for people could conform 
to WCAG 01 for their legacy pages and WCAG 02 for new content.

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195
-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf 
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 3:59 PM
Subject: FW: 4.1 Alternate 2

4.1 Alternate 2

In thinking about 4.1, a major problem we identified was existing 
content.  If we are asking companies to take a list of criteria such as one 
idea per sentenceand review all of the content on their site, it could take 
them years.  Even Trace would fail this since we would never find the time 
to read all of the thousands of pages to see if there is one idea per 
sentence. (Even if we decided we wont come change anything, we wouldnt have 
the time to even look at each sentence in order to comply with 4.1.  In 
addition, much of the stuff cannot be changed for historical, legal, and 
archival reasons.)

Now, how about if we focused instead on new material and revised 
material?  Im not sure how to word this.  Perhaps it would look like:

4.1 You will have successfully complied with 4.1 at the minimum level.  If 
you have reviewed all recently generated or updated materials with the 
following in mind.

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 14:13:21 UTC