Re: R: Congratulations !!

If you go on thinking this kind of things can be done by law, I wish you 
good luck, policeman. I just hope that UE will be able to operate a 
pressure on - better: to reach an agreement with - framework and CMS 
makers to praise the necessity of implementing tools that can help 
authors to meet the requirements under any circumstances. If this won't 
be done, the 2008 will be a date among the others in which "good 
intentions" aren't followed by facts. By the way, I only note that "plan 
now ... to achieve level Double A in the middle term" isn't what I call 
a (legal?) requirement. But if you feel better seeing it that way...

Another thing I note is that I thought we should talk about the 
relationship between well-formed, valid, or compliant code on one side 
and accessibility (in theory and in real world) on the other.

Now it seems to me that someone just want a law (maybe as a shortcut for 
when people don't agree with him) to go along with, no matter the 
theoretical and practical implication of the facts. I also know that 
some people have personal interest in the topic, and I can understand 
that. Nonetheless I found this very very sad, and I hope this wouldn't 
be the way web accessibility, and WAI as a respectable group, will run. 
We are doing technical requirements for products or processes, not laws. 
Sad, but someone can't see the difference. My suggestion is that people 
who want to make laws (even to protect their own affairs, if needed) 
will candidate themselves at politic elections.

Best things

Maurizio

Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:

>Thank u!
>Only a note from a new document from EU:
>http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/resources/eaccessibility/sectio
>n_5.asp#one
>
>Recommendation 12
>Ensure that government policy now builds applicable W3C WAI guideline
>requirements into all public procurements of new website designs, major
>upgrades, and all outsourced content production (such as reports,
>publications etc). In the case of software procurement, such requirements
>should apply equally regardless of the licensing model (open or
>closed-source). Note: This will normally require WCAG 1.0 Level Double-A,
>and may also include ATAG 1.0 Level Double-A and UAAG 1.0 (with an
>appropriate conformance profile) where these would also be applicable.
>
>Recommendation 14
>Plan now to get existing sites up to at least Level A in the short term (by
>the end of 2006) and to achieve Level Double-A in the mid-term (by end of
>2008), prioritising carefully work applied to individual sites in order to
>enable the quickest resolution of the most common problems and thus achieve
>the biggest impact.
>
>This means that by end of 2008 valid code is a requirement in Europe.
>
>
>
>
>-----Messaggio originale-----
>Da: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
>Inviato: giovedì 24 novembre 2005 7.14
>A: 'Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Oggetto: RE: Congratulations !!
>
>
>Hi Roberto,
>
> There were many proposals with regard to validity, well formedness,
>parse-ability etc.   The requirement in success criterion 4.1.1 was the one
>that the group reached consensus on.  This was at the Nov 10 meeting. 
> 
>Gregg
>
> -- ------------------------------ 
>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
>Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>Director - Trace R & D Center 
>University of Wisconsin-Madison 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>Of Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
>Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:42 PM
>To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Congratulations !!
>
>
>Sorry Gregg,
>What mean this?
>
>Optional Techniques (Advisory) for 4.1.1
>Although not required for conformance, the following additional techniques
>should be considered in order to make content more accessible. Not all
>techniques can be used or would be effective in all situations.  Conforming
>to specifications.  Validating delivery units.
> 
>There was a vote about validity where there was a decision that validity and
>conformance to other specification is an optional?
>
>----- Messaggio originale -----
>    Da: "Gregg Vanderheiden"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>
>    Inviato: 23/11/05 20.09.53
>    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>    Oggetto: Congratulations !!
>      
>    Congratulations everyone.
>    
>    We made the deadline and we have a new public draft of the WCAG 2.0
>    
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
>    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ 
>    
>    This was a massive effort by everyone.   We now have a cleaner, better,
>and
>    better documented version than we have ever had. 
>    
>    The techniques will need a work now - and we need to clear out the rest
>of
>    the issues on the guidelines etc.  I'm sure we will find things in the
>    "UNDERSTANDING WCAG 2.0" doc (the old Guide Dog alias Guide doc) as well
>    since it is a first draft.  It is amazing when you look at it to
>remember
>    that we assembled and wrote that whole thing in just the last couple
>months.
>    
>    
>    Lots still to do, but are on our way I think.  
>    
>    For now -- enjoy a week off well earned.  For those in the US - Happy
>    Thanksgiving Day.   For the rest - a week off and our giving of thanks
>to
>    you for all your work. 
>     
>    Gregg, John, Wendy and Ben   
>    For all the WCAG Chairs and Editors
>    
>     -- ------------------------------ 
>    Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
>    Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>    Director - Trace R & D Center 
>    University of Wisconsin-Madison 
>    
>    
>    
>    Hi Wendy, Judy, All,
>    
>    Done docs have been published on http://www.w3.org/TR/
>    
>    HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0
>    W3C Working Draft 23 November 2005
>    This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20051123/
>    Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ 
>    
>    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 W3C Working Draft 23 November
>2005
>    This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/
>    Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ 
>    
>    Understanding WCAG 2.0
>    W3C Working Draft 23 November 2005
>    This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/
>    Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20 
>    
>    Regards,
>    Matthieu
>    
>    
>    
>        
>
>[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare
>la restante parte.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Received on Friday, 25 November 2005 11:50:04 UTC