RE: Advice on AA conformation

Hi Andrew Leaving aside the question of legality; was the application audited with reference to WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0? As I am sure you know, parts of WCAG 1.0 are highly subjective. With WCAG 2.0 however, it seems to me that using the normative Success Criteria and informative Techniques you are much more likely to produce repeatable results. Of course, there is always like to be some subjective element, for example is the content of this text alternative really an equivalent alternative or are they just some words that fill the space but aren't really an equivalent. My suggestion would be to use WCAG 2.0 and ask the auditors to provide a Compliance Statement, which outlines the technologies used and relied upon and those that are used and not replied upon, as suggested in the WCAG 2.0 documentation. However, this still leaves open the question of which technologies are you allowed to consider accessibility supported within your jurisdiction. Roger From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andy Laws Sent: Saturday, 7 November 2009 3:44 AM To: WAI Interest Group list Subject: Advice on AA conformation Dear All We have come across a scenario lately, where 2 different accessibility audits have produced different results, As a company we are legally obliged to provide AA compliant web aplications, however this is very subjective, how as a company do we protect ourselves legally ie if we have met all checkpoint guide lines, is this sufficient Many Regards Andrew -- Andrew Laws Bsc(Hons) MBCS, FBCS Web-Sites: www.opelnet.co.uk www.cubiks.com www.holidayhypermarket.co.uk e-mail: adlaws@gmail.com Telephone:: +44 (0) 7828822987

Hi Andrew

 

Leaving aside the question of legality; was the application audited with reference to WCAG 1.0 or WCAG 2.0?

 

As I am sure you know, parts of WCAG 1.0 are highly subjective. With WCAG 2.0 however, it seems to me that using the normative Success Criteria and informative Techniques you are much more likely to produce repeatable results. Of course, there is always like to be some subjective element, for example is the content of this text alternative really an equivalent alternative or are they just some words that fill the space but aren’t really an equivalent.

 

My suggestion would be to use WCAG 2.0 and ask the auditors to provide a Compliance Statement, which outlines the technologies used and relied upon and those that are used and not replied upon, as suggested in the WCAG 2.0 documentation. However, this still leaves open the question of which technologies are you allowed to consider accessibility supported within your jurisdiction.

 

Roger

 

 

---

From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andy Laws
Sent: Saturday, 7 November 2009 3:44 AM
To: WAI Interest Group list
Subject: Advice on AA conformation

 

Dear All

 

 

We have come across a scenario lately, where 2 different accessibility audits have produced different results, As a company we are legally obliged to provide AA compliant web aplications, however this is very subjective, how as a company do we protect ourselves legally ie if we have met all checkpoint guide lines, is this sufficient

 

 

Many Regards

 

Andrew

--
Andrew Laws Bsc(Hons) MBCS, FBCS
Web-Sites:
www.opelnet.co.uk
www.cubiks.com
www.holidayhypermarket.co.uk
e-mail: adlaws@gmail.com
Telephone:: +44 (0) 7828822987