W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2007

RE: Conformance, Aggregation and Captions Survey for 12 April 2007

From: Evans, Donald <Donald.Evans@corp.aol.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:29:00 -0400
Message-ID: <1D65257B9F22C84F89F812FB1C24CA8D0FDA2C@EXCHNVA02.ad.office.aol.com>
To: "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>, "WCAG-WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To fully understand the proposal we need the definition of controlled.  The term was discussed at some length:

What does control mean?  How can you exercise control?

1.	By moderating it.  Editing it. Changing it.
2.	Validating it before acceptance.
3.	By having a contract with a 3rd party to produce it
4.	By having a EULA with the user
5.	But not by paying for it.  

Additionally, control should include having the legal right to alter the content.


So, if the aggregator has control through a contract I suggest that it be at level BBB.  Only once the contract proves to produce level A conforming content could a site claim level A.  



From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org on behalf of Bailey Bruce
Sent: Wed 4/11/2007 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: Conformance, Aggregation and Captions Survey for 12 April 2007

For sake of argument, let us assume we go with the most liberal (i.e.,
potentially least accessible) of the proposals:
1. Conforms at level 1 where controlled
2. No 3rd party content is controlled

Is there still the expectation (for WCAG 2.0 Single A claim) that the
aggregator explicitly provide a mechanism for the 3rd party content to
be accessible (even if it is not forced).  For example, if an aggregator
allows uploading of photos, must they provide a text field for ALT
value?  If an aggregator allows uploading of video, must they provide a
means to provide synchronized captions?  If so, is this a separate SC or
part of the conformance scoping?
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 13:29:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:36 UTC