Re: approval

and of course it should operate on different opperating systems and 
differing access equipment I would not consider it compliant if for 
example the text version only worked on Windows and JAWS.

Bob


On Mon, 20 Feb 2012, David Woolley wrote:

> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:02:48 +0000
> From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
> To: WAI Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Cc: Meliha Yenilmez <melihayenilmez@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: approval
> Resent-Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:03:19 +0000
> Resent-From: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> boaz sasson wrote:
>
>> 
>> To know if your site is accessible it needs to be checked against the 
>> checklist, this is something you can do alone, or hire a consultant like 
>> me to do.
>> 
> The checklist doesn't tell you whether it is accessible, only whether it 
> passes a certain level of the WCAG guidelines.  Even then, I believe there 
> are still a lot of subjective items in the checklist, and there should be.
>
> To find out if it is actually accessible, you need to find people with lots 
> of different disabilities and perform a usability survey on them, allowing 
> them to use their own browsers and any assistive technology that they use. 
> You should also include people who don't claim any disability, because a site 
> that is not easy to use by "normal" users is not really accessible.
>
> There is no, simple, prescriptive, formula for determining accessibility.
>
> -- 
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
>

Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 22:20:06 UTC