RE: RGAA (was RE: @summary in the wild)

You are right, Patrick.

(tu lis le français ?) :)

The implicit assumption is that sites are going to be mostly based on HTML.
Each control point is either conforming, non-conforming, or non-applicable.
The RGAA enables you to say you can't apply this or that rule according to
the actual page (WCAG2 sense) content.

Say for instance you're doing RIA: then many criteria will just be
non-applicable.

So yes, RGAA is a subset, and it makes attributes mandatory whereas WCAG2 is
more an expression of technically-agnostic principles. But it's much more
useful for public services than the 'theoretical' points on accessibility
that the WCAG2 make, as we all know accessibility has to be put into
practice by people who are not specialists.
 
-- 
Kind regards,
Stéphane Deschamps
Orange-France Telecom Group / IT Accessibility



-----Message d'origine-----
De : Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Envoyé : vendredi 11 décembre 2009 02:10
À : aurelien.levy@free.fr
Cc : stephane deschamps; John Foliot; HTML Accessibility Task Force; W3C
WAI-XTECH; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Objet : Re: RGAA (was RE: @summary in the wild)

On 10/12/2009 23:46, aurelien.levy@free.fr wrote:
> summary attribut is requiered only for data table and we expect to change
the guidelines to limit its use only on complex data table.
>
> RGAA will be frequently updated specialy when ARIA will become official
recommandation, it's a suite of unit test to verify conformity to wcag 2.0
(specially needed by the public services to verify that the webagency is
really doing her job correctly when the tender target a wcag compliant
website)

Ah, j'ai trouvé les documents en question ;)
http://references.modernisation.gouv.fr/rgaa-accessibilite

So, if I understand it correctly, RGAA is a set of your own normative 
tests, tied to specific technologies (doing things like mandating actual 
attributes, like alt for images and summary for data tables), which you 
then match up to WCAG 2.0 success criteria? It's basically a tightly 
defined subset of possible techniques (as there may exist a theoretical 
infinite number of techniques, as long as they pass the SC) that you 
require authors to adhere to? I can understand the benefit of this for 
large-scale conformance testing, but you're really then just testing 
conformance to RGAA, not to WCAG 2.0 (as there are certainly other 
techniques, not mandated in RGAA's test appendix of the WCAG 2.0 
techniques document, which nonetheless pass the SC).

Sorry, not being difficult here, just making sure I understand the 
purpose of RGAA (and to clarify that WCAG 2.0's original intent is not 
to make any statements as to required or not required attributes...only 
the SCs matter, and the techniques are merely informative).

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________



*********************************
This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees. 
Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
Messages are susceptible to alteration. 
France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
********************************

Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 07:51:39 UTC