RE: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

Ah I see. 

 

Hmm

 

We set it up so that there is no barrier to people saying whatever else they
want to say about their pages.  They can say "I am AAA conformant plus I
meet the XYZ list of provisions for such and such access.  In addition I
have a page customization feature ... etc."  

 

Can you say what you have in mind?   For example - what exactly would
someone do to qualify for your "gold" item (since the advisory technique are
often alternatives and you can't do both at the same time - so you can't say
'all advisory techniques'.   

 

We want to allow and encourage people to go beyond. 

 


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Bailey, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:18 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden
Subject: RE: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

Is there specific verbiage similar to what 508 has for equivalent
facilitation?

>  So we can't have a CC-9 that is advisory.  

Okay, so how about:
<q>
CC-Gold, Above and Beyond:  Content that conforms to advisory techniques or
other best practices.
</q>

> 2 Non-conforming Content: It is recommended that even non-conforming
content conform to the extent that it can.

That is nice too, but it is not the problem I am highlighting. 

I am suggesting a way for content owners to claim credit for going beyond
what is recommended for A/AA/AAA.  I brought up the example of robust Lynx
compatibility.  Other examples would include providing primary information
via video sign language or writing at a second grade level.