- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:14:48 +0200
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Cc: "Terry Dean" <Terry.Dean@chariot.net.au>
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:42:12 +0200, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > > Terry Dean wrote: > >> Could someone please tell me how the W3C or WAI view websites that >> claim to conform to the WAI Guidelines when clearly they do not. > I can't obviously speak for W3C/WAI, but I'd think that they're not > overjoyed by inaccessible sites making false/inaccurate claims...but > then again, they have no power to do anything about it, afaik. They could if they wanted to. They own copyright in the logos, and can certainly write a cease-and-desist letter to anyone who uses the logo to back their claim. > > How can a site claim WAI conformance to any priority level when the > html and >> css do not pass validation? >> Their claim is: >> "W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. All pages on the site have >> been >> reviewed and comply with most priority 1 guidelines to the best of our >> knowledge." If they are merely claiming that they conform to "most priority 1 guidelines" [sic - I guess a pedant would notice that they are caled checkpoints. Of course people who make our laws ought to be sufficiently pedantic to at least notice that] then their claim may not be false anyway. Certainly markup errors do not make a claim of conformance to level-A (or doing most P1 things) a false claim, as Patrick pointed out already cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
Received on Sunday, 3 September 2006 15:15:13 UTC