W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Sec. 508 vs. WAI

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 13:05:36 +1100
Cc: "'Phill Jenkins'" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <wai-wcag-editor@w3.org>
To: "Harry Woodrow" <harrry@email.com>
Message-Id: <9997F70C-5FF8-11D7-957F-000A95678F24@sidar.org>

I don't think the Access Board's comparison is anywhere near as good as 
Jim Thatcher's, and as noted in my response to this thread I don't 
think that is perfect either.

I agree that it would be helpful if WAI published assesments of other 
specifications in the same area, and how they compared (as well as the 
access board several major companies have their own), preferably 
joint-publishing agreed versions. But I don't think they have any 
particular obligation (they are an independent organisation) and it is 
an open question if this is the best use of resources - and how WAI 
sets is priorities is a separate discussion.

The above is my personal opinon and not necessarily endorsed by La 
Fundación Sidar. Same goes for anything I write that doesn't say it is 
endorsed by someone...



On Thursday, Mar 27, 2003, at 10:38 Australia/Melbourne, Harry Woodrow 

> Is it the role of the W3C to do this?  It seems to me that the two
> bodies produced different things. One a Recommendation on producing as
> fully accessible websites as possible and the other a specification for
> the purchasing of equipment and systems for a specific purchasing 
> group.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Phill Jenkins
> I would also publically ask that the W3C WAI publish their view of the
> differences between the Web part of the 508 technical standard and WCAG
> 1.0.  Better yet would be a joint document from both the Access Board
> and WAI that they both agree on.  I would recommend NOT including any
> discussion of the policy stuff, i.e., conformance vs compliance, since
> W3C does not really produce policy documents.
> What the Access-Board has published that Larry Hull quoted is an
> excellent start.  I also have an internal IBM version that I could
> contribute.  The Web Content Guidelines Working Group (GL) also needs 
> to
> publish a comparison for the next public draft of WCAG 2.0
Charles McCathieNevile           charles@sidar.org
Fundación SIDAR                       http://www.sidar.org
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 21:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:14 UTC