On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 03:51, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote: > XAG could become a Techniques Document for WCAG 2.0.... > Like HTML, CSS, etc. techniques. > What do you think about this proposal? I think XAG requirements deserve to be at the same level as WCAG requirements. In the proposal linked below, the basic idea is that WCAG 2.0 would say "To build accessible content, you start with a format that supports accessibility." What defines "an accessible format"? Another series of requirements that are already well-known to the WAI Community: * if the format supports audio, it must also support the ability to associate a synchronized transcript. * if the format supports images, it must also support text equivalents, And so forth. These are some of the XAG requirements today. They themselves have techniques associated with them: * What's a good way to allow authors to provide alternatives? The "alt" approach of HTML or the "switch" element of SMIL? What are the advantages of each approach? _ Ian > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/12-ij-wcag20.html -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447Received on Saturday, 27 March 2004 09:37:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC