RE: FW: Mock-up of merged WCAG 2.0 and XAG

My vote is with Ian too on this- it is more then techniques to conform
to WCAG. If we want to change WCAG to be more like XAG however....
All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian B. Jacobs
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 4:28 PM
> To: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
> Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; 'Judy Brewer'
> Subject: Re: FW: Mock-up of merged WCAG 2.0 and XAG
> 
> 
> 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:                     +1 718 260-9447
>

Received on Sunday, 28 March 2004 03:41:36 UTC