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:

The external resource could be a school teachers notes, developed for use in his own 
classes.
He thinks they are okay, as they certainly help him do the job.
In his benevolence he wishes to share this resource with teachers nation-wide.

On said resource: 
    . I can insist legalities are met.
    . I can ask for / suggest full compliance.
    . I can also assume the owner has little or no technical knowledge.

The intention is to publish the resource, as long as it is legal, with guidance on 
technical improvements.

Maybe the real question is:
    "What guidelines if broken, or level of brokenness, would constitute a breach in 
the UK DDA laws?"

For example
    WAI Statement-ish: "All images must have alt tags".

Under UK law this would not be a breach if a user can access and use the service 
provided.
Therefore this would be better stated as:
    "Alt tags are required for:  Navigational images,  form image buttons, text in 
images, and contextually important images".
This would fail WAI but pass UK law.

After all the teacher should be encouraged to share resources with only the minimum of 
red tape.


Maybe I should just simplify the whole thing?

    A resource may be failed for:
        1. Failure to attain WAI priority one
        2. Failure to publish coding to a W3C formal grammar.
    A resource will be failed for:
        1. Failure to comply to UK law, 

And simply leave it to the discretion of the reviewer.
Though I was hoping to achieve a checklist for a minimum (UK DDA law) pass level.



mike 2k:)2
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original message
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Flash / Framesets.

These guidelines were set over 18 months ago.
Now they are due for review prior to the final part of the DDA coming into UK law.

It would be improper for me to dictate full WAI compliance if it is not a legal 
necessity. Though it is a requirement to insist on meeting the legal minimum.

I was thinking as a minimum:
        1. Alt tags for all:  Navigation images,  form image buttons and text in 
images. 
        2. Colour must not be used as the sole method of highlighting information      
 3. No flickering or blinking in images or text. 
        4. Data tables require row and column headers. (same as priority one) 
        5. Each frame requires a title and must point to a valid (X)HTML document.     
 6. Ensure that content areas are available and navigable with JavaScript / Java 
applets / Flash switched off. 
        7. Supply a text transcript to multimedia objects. 
        8. Ensure sufficient colour contrast. 
        9. Content available and navigable via keyboard. 
        10. Implicit form label associations (title before input). Along with 
recommendations to fully comply with the WAI priority one and W3C validation.


What do you think? Too much or too little?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************


*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************

Reply via email to