Re: Proposal with updates from 26 May call

Hello Greg,

You asked:
> 1 - should someone who conforms to WCAG 1-AAA  automatically
>    conform to WCAG 2-Level 3 ??

I think yes... Too many guestbooks, weblogs, poem pages etc exist which
claim to be wcag-aaa conform and I really don't see any possibility how the
contributions in it can be brought to WCAG 2.0-AAA. The site-owner should 
write everyone who contributed
a mail: please make your contribution more accessible? That is very
It even might be true that some contributions are only made in these
websites because people who made them, thought: this is a ful accessible
website, so i write it here.

> 2 - should WCAG 2.0 provide any improved access (which would
>    Preclude #1)  along with fixing the problems with 1.0 ??

It should  only improve access  and fixing problems when it can be done in 
the code, nothing
else... i am sure that is possible to require valid code, also  from pages
that now claim to conform to  be wcag-a when validation of code is promoted
to level 1. UAs an ATs will render the site more correctly, also future 
technologies will do. Perhaps
should be mentioned that the strict version is preferred?

Dictionaries and word lists should only be required for pages which have a 
teaching or information function. But never in literal pages. It even  might 
be that the current meaning of words in dictionaries are different
from the meaning of the words in the time the prose of poem was written. And 
so a wrong interpretation may be possible. The meaning of words differ from 
time to time, at least in Dutch language and this may be true for many other 
languages too.

We now live in a time that weblogs, forums and guestbooks take an important 
place in the internet and I don't think the contributions should not conform 
to anything more than the used software is able to do.

I even think software or/and UAs should take over many of tasks mentioned in 
the current requirements in the WCAG 2.0. Of course everything that could be 
made more accessible by code, should be required in webpages.

Perhaps it should be forbidden to place smileys in forums or guestbooks? 
They make reading/understanding of the text very difficult, sometimes even 
for me, when parts of a sentences are placed between some smileys.  And 
moving smileys are still more worse.

Ineke van der Maat

Received on Saturday, 28 May 2005 14:36:10 UTC