[WSG] FW: What do you consider to be the minimum Accessibility level to cover legal requirements?

2004-07-06 Thread Mike Foskett
Hi all, I'm about to rewrite the technical standards for the acceptance of external, and independent, web resources. At present they are only guidelines and they suggest: . Compliance to WAI priority one (plus a little). . W3C validated coding with allowable exceptions. E.g.

Re: [WSG] FW: What do you consider to be the minimum Accessibility level to cover legal requirements?

2004-07-06 Thread Andy Budd
Mike Foskett wrote: I'm about to rewrite the technical standards for the acceptance of external, and independent, web resources. At present they are only guidelines and they suggest: . Compliance to WAI priority one (plus a little). . W3C validated coding with allowable exceptions. E.g. Flash /

RE: [WSG] FW: What do you consider to be the minimum Accessibility level to cover legal requirements?

2004-07-06 Thread Mike Foskett
Thanks for the response Andy. Great quiz by the way. Made me think and laugh. You are suggesting the guidelines as they stand now with cases of must replacing should. The problem is they're set too high. If applied strictly then even the DRC's website would fail. Here's an extended scenario:

RE: [WSG] FW: What do you consider to be the minimum Accessibility level to cover legal requirements?

2004-07-06 Thread Geoff Deering
-Original Message- From: Mike Foskett Hi all, I'm about to rewrite the technical standards for the acceptance of external, and independent, web resources. At present they are only guidelines and they suggest: . Compliance to WAI priority one (plus a little). . W3C