Re: "Accessibility features"

This success criterion (and all the rest in the current internal 
draft) have been dropped in the proposal for Guideline 4.2 

There is already a bugzilla entry

   http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=822

that this success criterion is too vague.

I wonder if we could address the concerns raised in that bug report. I 
think there is something we are trying to say in these success 
criteria. We just haven't succeeded in saying it.

> 
> During the call last Thursday, somebody complained that my rewrite 
of 
> 1.3 to require the use of accessibility features of a technology was 
> ambiguous. Which technology? And what if there aren't any for that 
> technology?
> 
> If this is such a contentious concept, why is it already in 4.2?
> 
> >Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 4.2
> >
> >     1. Accessibility conventions of the markup or programming 
> language>        (API's or specific markup) are used. [I]
> 
> If memory serves, WAI has spent a lot of time documenting the 
> accessibility features of various technologies. None of this is a 
> crazy new concept.

Received on Monday, 23 May 2005 22:25:40 UTC