CARVIEW |
Select Language
HTTP/2 200
date: Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:16:14 GMT
content-type: text/html
content-encoding: gzip
last-modified: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 18:15:44 GMT
cache-control: max-age=2592000, public
expires: Sat, 08 Nov 2025 15:16:13 GMT
vary: Accept-Encoding
access-control-allow-origin: *
x-request-id: 98bed681dda6f473
strict-transport-security: max-age=15552015; preload
x-frame-options: deny
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
cf-cache-status: MISS
set-cookie: __cf_bm=rfkN0tiVFim7GlMkflBPcyxtXvoukKe_wxatdmuHi4A-1760022974-1.0.1.1-cZTuqjsmKZe11xZ4TSAT4QhH59zbNlA_P36.VIS1ZQuWJwtpAuru3J266I4AFBmYG0Kd.G.lUPhZ524n2lPBBfBFD0PDzrdIai.gMcelR_w; path=/; expires=Thu, 09-Oct-25 15:46:14 GMT; domain=.w3.org; HttpOnly; Secure; SameSite=None
server: cloudflare
cf-ray: 98bed681dda6f473-BLR
alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=86400
Comments on WCAG 2.0 from Bill Mason on 2002-08-28 (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org from July to September 2002)
Comments on WCAG 2.0
- From: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:18:31 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.1.6.0.20020828072455.009fbec0@accessibleinter.net>
Checkpoint 1.1 Minimum success criteria: I cannot fathom point 2 after reading it several times. If the ''non-text content...can not be expressed in words" but success is defined as having "a descriptive label [that] presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content", then you've expressed the content in words. Example 1 has a right arrow icon whose text equivalent is "Next Slide" but the ALT tag for the image reads only "Next". Checkpoint 1.2 Minimum success criteria: Point 2 exempts news and emergency information from captioning, yet below in Example 2 a news story about an emergency is captioned. Checkpoint 1.5 Level 2 success criteria: Point 2 calls for abbreviations and acronyms to be identified "where they occur". Later, checkpoint 4.3 will call for identification only in the first instance where they appear. Example 2: W3C is an abbreviation, not an acronym. At the top of the draft in the copyright line, W3C is correctly tagged <abbr>. General observation: Many checkpoints have a statement from the author asserting that the document has been reviewed etc. as a step for Level 2 success. I am unclear how claiming a certain level of conformance will apply if such a statement is not applicable. Example: I meet level 3 in all criteria except Checkpoint 3.5. This checkpoint at level 2 requires me to state that the user is warned of essential inconsistent or unpredictable responses. Now, if there are no such responses in the site, I have nothing to state. And therefore without a statement (as I currently read the draft) I cannot claim level 2 success. Now, what level of conformance can the site claim as a whole? Level 3 because 3.5 does not apply to me? Level 1+ because I have not achieved level 2 in this checkpoint? I believe this whole area needs to be clarified in the draft. Bill Mason Accessible Internet w3c@accessibleinter.net https://www.accessibleinter.net/
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:19:44 UTC