- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 09:40:08 -0700
- To: "Bailey Bruce" <Bailey@access-board.gov>
- Cc: WCAG-WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <824e742c0704120940s14e32872q48958fa3f62f2e9@mail.gmail.com>
I think it moves us more and more into the sphere of authoring tools and ATAG. I would rather see someone evaluating such Web pages against ATAG explicitly, and just evaluate the results for WCAG. Loretta On 4/12/07, Bailey Bruce <Bailey@access-board.gov> wrote: > > 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? > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 16:40:29 UTC