- From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 22:40:37 +0200
- To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 10:29 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 Checklist We have tried to word the SC so that you Passed if you did not use the technology. In the past when NA was a choice it was much abused and used when the technology was present but the rater felt that it shouldn't need to conform. Perhaps the form generally should be "Any xxx are yyyy." Then it is true if there is no xxx. Roberto Scano: Mmm... I think this could be ambiguous. For example: "1.1 L3 SC1: For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined transcript of captions and audio descriptions of video is available." If I read this SC, I cannot flag the checkbox if there is no prerecored multimedia content. I undrestand your example, but I think that - also for migration from WCAG 1.0 and conformance with other WAI rec. - we should mantain the three solutions: YES - NO - N/A. This, IMHO. Roberto Scano IWA/HWG Member
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 20:40:53 UTC