- From: Roberto Castaldo <r.castaldo@iol.it>
- Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 20:58:40 +0200
- To: <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Cc: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Roberto Scano \(IWA/HWG\)'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, <ij@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <jbrewer@w3.org>
Hi Loretta, Loretta: Are we really proposing modifications to WCAG 1.0 at this point? Forbidding other solutions seems like we are narrowing the original guideline. Roberto Castaldo: I'm not proposing any modification in WCAG 1.0; I simply see that the checkpoint 11.4, as it is (and as many others in WCAG 1.0), can be read and interpretated in many ways, and in most cases such interpretations can take developers away from the right way. As Roberto Scano said, we could start and fix the phrase "after the best efforts..."... I say fix because it is not objective and may lead to strage situations. Loretta: Or are we arguing that WCAG2 should take a narrower stance? Roberto Castaldo: I do hope that WCAG 2.0 will be able to give a strong and unique signal, and that its success criteria will result much more clear and easier to follow rather than being interpretated; generally I think that, if necessary, WCAG 2.0 may even narrow the WCAG 1.0 guideline... in my personal opinion, in this situation WCAG 2.0 should explicitally say that, while isolated alternative pages can represent a good solution, any "alternative site" is not allowed, and this comes up to technical and ethical reasons. Best regards, Roberto Castaldo ----------------------------------- www.Webaccessibile.Org coordinator IWA/HWG Member rcastaldo@webaccessibile.org r.castaldo@iol.it Icq 178709294 -----------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 19:03:03 UTC