W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

Re: W3C Process and WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft 17/05/07

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:21:14 +0200
To: "Lisa Seeman" <lisa@ubaccess.com>, <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>\"=?utf-8?B?IOOBguOCiuOBjOOBqOOBhuOBlOOBluOBhOOBvuOBl+OBn+OAgg==?=\" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, Loretta Guarino Reid ありがとうございました。\" <lorettaguarino@google.com>\"Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.\"com>\" <j.chetwy, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: "'Andy Heath, Axelrod Research and Computing'" <AndyHeath@axelrod.plus.com>, "'Andy Heath'" <a.k.heath@shu.ac.uk>, "'Gez Lemon'" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "'Roberto Scano'" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "'Gian Sampson-Wild'" <gian@tkh.com.au>, "'Dr. Andy Judson'" <ajudson@computing.dundee.ac.uk>, "'Yvette Hoitink'" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, "'Marc Walraven'" <marc.walraven@ascii.be>, "'Fred Heddell MBE, Inclusion International'" <info@inclusion-international.org>, "'Mrs. Zoe Apostolopoulou e-ISOTIS'" <zoe@e-isotis.org>, "'Andrew Arch'" <Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org>, "'Sofia Celic'" <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>, "'Keith Smith, BILD (British Institute of Learning Disabilities)'" <k.smith@bild.org.uk>, "'Peter Rainger'" <peter.rainger@googlemail.com>, "public-comments-wcag20@w3.org" <public-comments-wcag20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ttwshohlwxe0ny@widsith.lan>

On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:46:51 +0200, Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com> wrote:

> I agree with Jonathan, in that the current draft does not have the  
> wording that I was hoping.
> Specifically we want people to look at other specifications until WCAG  
> adequately supports people with Learning Disabilities. That it why it  
> was  important that the words "There is a need for more research and  
> development in this important area." are removed, as this implies that  
> WCAG 2.0 has done it's best under the currently available knowledge.
> People will assume from the current wording , that there are no better  
> options to include people with learning disabilities. Even worse - they  
> may think that other standards are non credible.
> It is important to note that some sites WANT to include people with  
> learning disabilities. The very least we should not make it less likely   
> for them to succeed.

I agree that the current draft simply fails to recognise work done outside  
WCAG, and instead gives the impression that there is no other current  
knowledge - which as Lisa notes does a dis-service to accessibility and to  
those who want to make their sites accessible.

The process issue is difficult. I think that there are valid criticisms to  
be made against W3C process in dealing with an area of general concern,  
and in particular in the application of that process in WCAG from time to  
time. However, I am not sure what are the specific structural changes that  
I would suggest. Instead, unfortunately, since I cannot dedicate  
sufficient time to participation in order to meet the requirements of good  
standing, I have chosen to simply rely on the public feedback aspects of  
W3C process - last call, and the proposed recommendation process (since we  
are a W3C member).

I believe that the comment process, and ensuring that we follow up on it,  
is about the best way to proceed for those who don't have the bandwidth to  
maintain good standing in the group.



   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals@opera.com    Catch up: Speed Dial   http://opera.com
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2007 11:23:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:44 UTC