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

RE: Editorial Survey #1 is up

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:02:18 +0200
Message-Id: <>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi Bruce, all,

At 16:57 15/05/2007, Bailey Bruce wrote:
> > Search engine algorithms can change.
>Granted, we do not want WCAG 2.0 sites held hostage to a possibly
>capricious WWW search engine.  But it sure is convenient to have Google
>as a benchmark!

It's not just WWW search engines: organizations often rely on search
engines developed externally and it may not be clear how alternative
versions are handled (if at all), both by the underlying algorithms
and in the presentation of search results.
Moreover, alternative versions don't need to match page for page
(i.e. one file in format X but five pages in HTML); this would
complicate the job of a search engine if there are no other metadata
to help the identification of alternative versions.

(FWIF, I don't support reliance on search engine behaviour
as a way to pass WCAG 2.0 conformance requirement #4. If you
land on an inaccessible document in a format that doesn't support
links or where you can't get to the links, you need to take too
many steps to find an alternative: hack the URL to get out of
the file (assuming you are not trapped in the first place, but
keyboad trap is covered by conformance requirement #6),
find a search engine, formulate your query (oh, what was the
title of that document again?), peruse search results, ...)

Best regards,


Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group 
on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2007 19:02:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:32:37 UTC