|

»

w3.org - w3c-wai-ig

non normative check list

View: New views

3 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	non normative check list by Sonia Rockett :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Hi There. Wondered if anyone could share their thoughts on the below: How useful is the non normative check WCAG2.0 list? http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/appendixB.html We have created our own checklist from the WCAG 2.0 standards which is a lot more in-depth. Essentially it includes all the 2.0 checkpoints. The non-normative doesn’t seemed to do this, but is written in a very friendly way. Also what automated checker currently covers the most WCAG 2.0 check points at present? And does not include the WCAG 1.0?? As I am guessing that some of the older 1.0 guidelines are no longer considered good practice. Sonia Sonia Rockett SensoryStore 5 Barnfield Crescent Southernhay Exeter EX1 1QT www.sensorystore.co.uk Tel: 0796 816 3903 Please consider the environment before printing this email - thank you
	W3/WCAG Guideline Outlook 2007 html messages by Bill Tipton :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy. Hello, Does an html body of an Outlook 2007 email message need to meet WCAG 1.1 to comply? The message has images with no text alternative when you open and read the message with Jaws 10. If you open the message with a web browser, alt h-x-v the images have text alternatives in the browser. Does this meet WCAG 1.1, or is there something the developer of the email body can do to resolve? If the html email body can display text alternatives directly in Outlook 2007, do you have a resource that explains how to resolve? Thank you, Bill
	Re: W3/WCAG Guideline Outlook 2007 html messages by David Woolley (E.L) :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message Bill Tipton wrote: > > The message has images with no text alternative when you open and read > the message with Jaws 10. In my experience, HTML email is so far from meeting accessibility requirements that I'm not sure I'd want to pick on one point. The reality is that it is there to allow people to produce WYSIWYG emails, when using the same brand of software at both ends. It is just possible that some clients can behave well with a well trained writer, but the software is not intended to be used primarily by well trained writers. Specifically on alt text for images. That is primarily a rssponsibility for writers. Tools can make it impossible, by not exposing the necessary user interfaces to the writer, but no tool can produce useful alternative text without the help of the writer. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.