Edit comment LC-837 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-722 Next: LC-900

Comment LC-837: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Kazunori MINATANI <minatani@debian.or.jp> on behalf of Science and Technology research Laboratories, Japan Broadcast Corporation; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Part of Item:
Comment Type: substantive
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Conformance claims are complicated definitions. They are human understandable however user will not make good use of them. And they are not machine understandable because their definition and format are not provided strictly.

Proposed Change:

Describing format of Conformance claims should be
determined strictly. If Conformance claims are understandable for a User Agent
(whether achieve a baseline or not), it is possible to cope with
that contents.; Related issues: 1317
(space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMA] I've sent an email to Minatini to ask for clarification. Is he suggesting we make the SC 100% machine tesable...if that is what he is saying. then... While its true that introducing technology independence into the 2.0 does add a certain amount of complexity, we have done our utmost to make the guidelines as clear as possible and continue to look for improvements to ease of language where it would not comprimize the solution. If I undersand this comment correctly he is suggesting we make the SC semantically machine testable. THe working group makes it clear that accessibility is not something that can be tested only by machines. Propose to not-accept the comment. Minatini responded to my request for clarification. He said: No. I understood the Success Criteria would not be made to 100% machine testable. But if a way of Conformance Claims's description is prescribed strictly(without no arbitrariness), User Agents will be able to parse a Conformance Claims and understand what is problem. And they may find a solution in spite of they don't achieve the baseline. I focused on this point. I asked him if he was talking about metadata... > HI Minatani > > Are you speaking about metadata for conformance claims? Yes. My proposal will be exactly achieved by metadata. Discussed in the 13 July 2006 telecon: Accepted by unanimous consent. http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html Same as LC-1317; Resolution: Conformance to WCAG neither requires or prohibits the use of specific formats for describing conformance. The working group expects to provide informative information describing a variety of strategies for documenting conformance in cooperation with the education and outreach working group in the future.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)