- From: Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:17:50 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <D9ABD8212AFB094C855045AD80FB40DD033FB45E@1wfmail.watchfire.com>
This is slightly off the direct topic (I should say "orthagonal to" in today's doublespeak) of supporting vs. host technology but is an important side point to me: I have a different opinion about technology-specific checklists - I think there should be checklists for technologies like CSS alone, even though in themselves a Web site cannot be made fully WCAG compliant by following all the items that would appear in such a checklist. I can easily imagine the case in which one developer codes HTML and another codes CSS, and later somebody puts it together and makes sure everything works. I think the CSS developer should have access to a CSS-specific checklist so they don't have to pick and choose the relevant points from an HTML + CSS checklist while doing their work. Certainly it needs to be very clear that the site cannot be declared WCAG conformant by following the CSS checklist alone - indeed it should not be considered conformant by following HTML and CSS checklists separately. Somebody needs to put the pieces together, using a single combined HTML + CSS checklist (or whatever combination of host and supporting technologies is used. Nevertheless having the checklists available separately is a useful development resource. Perhaps the difference between this view and the one expressed by Gregg (which is the majority view as far as I know) is a difference between checklists and techniques. If you see techniques as a developer resource and checklists as a validation resource, then the situation I just described doesn't really come up and I don't have as much of a basis for my position. However, my own work style is that I would use checklists during development. I have the familiarity with the techniques that I don't need to refer to them, and would just use checklists as reminders. Certainly this level of familiarity with the techniques is not widespread but I think we would hope it would be and should support that work style (among many others) in the way we prepare our materials. Michael -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:16 PM To: 'Sailesh Panchang'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Supporting Technology Right In conjunction with techniques we will be developing "Technology Specific Checklists". These checklists will be what people actually use in practice since they will say specifically what must be done with each technology to meet the WCAG. The checklists will be for technologies or sets of technologies that can meet all of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. They will have to allow a person to at least meet all of the level 1 success criteria. ( or else they would have to start out with a statement that in order for content presented with this technology to meet WCAG 2.0 all content must also be presented in another technology in a form that did meet minimum WCAG 2.0 --- which of course is not very encouraging) So there would be no CSS checklist. Only an HTML plus CSS checklist. Or an XHTML plus CSS checklist. Or XHTML + CSS + Scripting checklist. Gregg
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2003 16:16:21 UTC