RE: About proposed 'conforming alternative version' technique

> Also, there is sometimes mismatch in the WCAG 2.0 documentation on "conforming alternative version" for an entire web page versus for
> individual components on a web page. Sometimes the text is not very clear on whether it refers to web pages that are intended to be the
> alternative to other non-conforming web pages, or whether components are intended to be alternative to other non-conforming components
> (for example, video without captions that has an alternative version with caption). It think some clarifications in the Understanding document
> and maybe additional Techniques would help make this clearer.

Agree that we need more clarification, thanks Shadi for flagging this as it is about time to circle back to this topic, but I don't think we should try and hash it out over email.  The more difficult example is date pickers.  CC'ing David since we have already gone around a bit about this without much resolution.

I also want to remind (or maybe inform) folks that CAV was a very controversial point with the recent U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) rulemaking requiring airlines to conform to WCAG AA (Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Accessibility of Web Sites and Automated Kiosks at U.S. Airports, 12 November 2013).

Here is the link to the start of the relevant discussion and explanation section (5. Conforming Alternate Versions, from the preamble) in the Federal Register:
http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-26749#h-23

The rule text added the caveat that "You are permitted to use a Level AA conforming alternate version only when conforming a public-facing Web page to all WCAG 2.0 Level AA success criteria would constitute an undue burden or fundamentally alter the information or functionality provided by that page."  See:
http://www.federalregister.gov/a/2013-26749/p-295

Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2014 18:01:30 UTC