Katrina wrote:
As far as I understand, you need to pass zero (a disclaimer exists for
this possibility) or one criterion to claim that compliance level.
(Disclaimer: I am very likely wrong; what do I know?)
According to the conformance levels listed at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/conformance.html#conformance-reqs
Claiming AAA compliance requires all Level 1 & 2 criteria be met and a
minimum of 50% of Level 3 (dependent on user agent support and
technology baseline)
What I am suggesting is that you can use audio descriptions to
prerecorded multimedia to pass both level 1 (1.2.2) and level 2 (1.2.3)
and then include American sign language into a corner somewhere to claim
level 3 (1.2.5)
There will always be people who skimp on their efforts and claim
compliance regardless.
However, passing Level 1 requires both 1.2.1 and 1.2.2. Just as passing
Level 2 requires both 1.2.3 and 1.2.4. This is very clear from the
conformance requirements referenced above. What may not be as clear is
that passing Level 3 would (in every circumstance I can think of,
although I am sure there are outliers) require each of its three success
criteria be met. With the exception of the differences between live and
pre-recorded multimedia that I mentioned in my previous email on this
subject
To me, 'or' means only one needs to be present to be true. 'And' means
both must be present to result in true. So if you choose the audio
description of 1.2.2 then you don't need the text alternative, you
already have a true. But this exact same criterion is then repeated in
1.2.3.
This is correct. For Level 1, the author can choose either audio
descriptions OR a full multimedia text alternative including any interaction
Guideline 1.2 only requires that you provide both in order to achieve
Level 3
My current worry is that a level 3 compliancy with guideline 1.2 could
result in something inaccessible for the hearing-impaired who do not use
American sign-language.
This concerns me too. It basically becomes the same as whether or not
you can read a Japanese web site. Should its author care? It depends on
whether or not they are trying for an English-speaking audience
I hope this clears up your confusion (and if I've made mistakes, someone
please let me know!).
If you still disagree with the wording, phrasing, intent or any of the
content of the latest draft, I strongly recommend that you let the
Working Group know. As per Russ's email this morning, the version we are
discussing here is the Last Call Working Draft.
"Comments should be received on or before 31 May 2006.
Comments should be made in one of four formats:
* online form,
* downloadable excel form,
* downloadable html form, or
* downloadable text form.
Instructions and downloadable files for all are available at:
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/comments/>"
They are particularly keen on comments regarding the conformance model
and success criteria, so your concerns are very relevant, Kat. Please
address them to the group if they still trouble you!
As a side note, I recommend a bit of administrative slyness regarding
such comments... Submit each one separately. My understanding is that
internal standards requires that each receive a separate response, hence
ensuring that each of your queries is fully addressed
Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that (or any of the
preceding essay) :)
Have a great weekend, folks
Lachlan Hardy
(The Attempting Accessibility Lachlan)
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
