- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:53:34 +0100
- To: "Matt May" <mcmay@w3.org>
- Cc: "WAI GL (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt May" <mcmay@w3.org> To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org> Cc: "WAI GL (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:39 PM Subject: Re: Backoffice: must conform to WCAG? Regarding any issues with confusion, it has already been discussed that WCAG 2 should contain expanded explanations of ATAG and UAAG, and their roles in producing accessible content. One important issue in explaining these is that Web applications that produce Web content (e.g., Web-based content management systems) should be looking to ATAG, not just WCAG. That is one message I cannot emphasize enough. Roberto: Thank you for your explain. My question and the discussion that we are doing the italian webaccessibile.org mailing list is: a web page that contains a form with: page title: __________________ small descr: _________________ Keywords: ____________________ visible: [] True [] False Content: [--PLUGIN---] [Submit] [Cancel] [--PLUGIN---] is a plug-in called with the <object> element that is accessible to assistive technologies (WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 8.1), device independent and generates accessible contents. The questions are: a) the page can claim the WCAG conformance if all the WCAG checkpoint for a conformance level are soddisfed? b) the page can also claim ATAG conformance for the plug-in if the plug-in reach a conformance level for ATAG? If this is OffTopic for this list, please let me know and we discuss in private :)
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 14:53:47 UTC