W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2015

Your definition of WCAG2.0 conformance

From: Oscar Cao <oscar.cao@live.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 22:13:53 +1100
Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP34FB504CE2F171041419E68C100@phx.gbl>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hello all

 

I have been thinking for the past few days.

 

Some people don't care about coding standards, their view of conformance is:
as long as keyboard users and blind users are catered for, they're
conformant.

This has prompted me to think - what about the visual user, power user,
everyone else? Since there's nowhere in WCAG2.0 that mentions anything that
covers us - the bulk of the users that do not have any known impairments as
such.

 

I started thinking about user-friendly URIs. For my personal sites, I will
not accept anything less than user-friendly/search engine-optimised URIs.
Would you consider a site that does not have any clear structure (i.e. the
entire site's pages sits on the root folder, even though the navigation
shows them as below another page). Or having URIs with upper and lowercase
letters mixed (assuming they've configured the server to ignore the casing
in the URIs). Or URIs with joined words like:
http://mydomain.com/shop/Basket/ViewBasket/EmptyBasket. Keeping in mind
that, all the references within the website works.

 

So would be nice to hear how others give out conformance statements and
whether they look at anything else beyond WCAG2.0. Maybe I should include
another standard that covers the URI scenario?

 

Thanks

Oscar

 
Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 11:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:54 UTC