I think that would be great
Thanks Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Heath" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: new work from W3C
> Lisa,
>
> I posted on some other lists that this conversation
> was taking place but people may not make the effort
> if they aren't on DC-ACC. Do you mind if I post your
> points, attributed to you, on other lists where there
> are people that may wish to respond to the issues ?
>
> andy heath
>
>> Lisa
>> thanks for pointing out those as the potential problems - others might
>> be interested in these issues. I suggest that comments are posted to
>> the W3C comments list but welcome discussion on this list as WCAG is
>> very relevant to the work we do in developing an Application Profile
>> for accessibility.
>>
>> Liddy
>>
>> On 18/05/2006, at 8:35 PM, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Liddy, I don't think WCAG 2.0 will make content as accessible as
>>> one can. I have three basic concerns.
>>>
>>> 1. There is no game plan for real inclusion of people with learning
>>> disabilities. The guidelines sound right, but the success criteria
>>> lack the substance to do much good. (Try using their techniques
>>> document and imagine you have a naming disability and can not cross
>>> reference between success criteria numbers and what each one
>>> means.... They follow their own guidelines but it doesn't do it). As
>>> such they need to lose the claim (at least in the short term) that
>>> following WCAG will give accessibility to people with Learning
>>> Disabilities.
>>>
>>> 2. What makes sites inoperable by assistive technology has not been
>>> adequately covered. I think AJAX sites that are unusable need to be
>>> tested against the success criteria to see if conforming to success
>>> criteria result in an accessible application. In my experience some
>>> issues such as encapsulation of the functions and behaviors of each
>>> element is essential. Issues like a correct element always having
>>> focus etc, also fundamentally brakes this type of application. (They
>>> have touched on it with 1.3.1 Information and relationships conveyed
>>> through presentation can be programmatically determined, ...and
>>> others but I don't think they are requiring what is needed)
>>>
>>> 3, I am not sure if language tag issues have been understood, Level
>>> two requirements may be hugely burdensome and I think not hugely
>>> necessary on non English sites.
>>>
>>> It is implied above but it does not seem that WCAG has tested that
>>> conformance results in accessibility. I think the direction is good
>>> but, what is needed is a full range of testing in new and upcoming
>>> web scenarios as well as for a full range access related issues.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Liddy Nevile"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:39 AM
>>> Subject: new work from W3C
>>>
>>>
>>>> W3C have their new version of the Web Content Guidelines (Version
>>>> 2.0) out for public comment - so it might be a good time to take a
>>>> look. See http://www.w3.org/2006/03/dial-pressrelease The closing
>>>> date for comments is May 31 - see http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>>>> WCAG20/comments/
>>>>
>>>> There has been some concern about the provision for people with
>>>> cognitive disabilities. Perhaps if you are an expert in this field,
>>>> you could comment?
>>>>
>>>> W3C also has a new language being developed which should be of
>>>> particular interest to people who care about the adaptability of
>>>> resources - see http://www.w3.org/2006/03/dial-pressrelease
>>>>
>>>> Liddy
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> andy
> ___________________
> Andy Heath
> http://axelrod.plus.com
>
|
