- From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:43:35 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFCB4CA132.ABD1A97D-ON8625720C.006EA5B4-8625720C.0071C867@us.ibm.com>
Anna, be careful in how much faith you are putting in this list. It's just that, people spending their "volunteer" time in responding. It has taken years for the WCAG 2.0 working group to reach consensus to produce working drafts. Why do you think this list could reach consensus on example good sites? When participating in some web competitions, where sites were submitted for "judging" (see note 1 Knowbility) of their accessibility compliance, even 5 experienced judges with years of experience in accessibility, many of them having been part of the original WCAG 1.0 working group (see note 2), had a hard time in reaching consensus on the particular sites being judged. The "judges" have reduced that gap by using a consistent methodology and consistent tools. And now even have a better process in understanding each judges' position on an issue and why they were different that the other judges' position. All these have reduced the differences of opinion, but there still remained some difference of opinion. This list has had none of this "maturing" process, its just an interest list. There is no working group in WAI tasked with this requirement, BUT, there is an attempt to collect best practices and document them in the techniques for WCAG (see note 3). So, if you built a commercial site out of these "best practices" example - then you would have a "good example site". good luck, Phill Jenkins IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center http://www.ibm.com/able Note 1 Knowbility: http://www.knowbility.org/newsletter/?content=simsFall2006 Note 2 Original WCAG working Group: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/appendixC.html Note 3 WCAG 2.0 Techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-GENERAL/
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2006 20:43:49 UTC