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

I think Don is right too, but I think the issue of control is quite
separate from the need for a WCAG requirement to facilitate accessible
content from user submission.  Maybe we can draw from UAAG for this?

________________________________

From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 10:13 AM
To: Bailey Bruce
Cc: WCAG-WG
Subject: Re: Conformance, Aggregation and Captions Survey for 12 April
2007


I think Don is right, that to the degree that these sorts of exceptions
are allowed at all, they would be covered by what it means to be
controlled. That isn't spelled out in these proposals, and the
discussion in the subgroup had moved away from these issues, which seem
specific to user-contributed content, as we wrestled with issues like
web applications that can display content from arbitrary URLs, etc. 

If this would affect your response, please note it in the comments. Feel
free to suggest modifications or new proposals.

Loretta 
 

On 4/11/07, Bailey Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov> wrote: 

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