- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 16:45:04 +0100
- To: Giorgio Brajnik <giorgio@dimi.uniud.it>, Markel Vigo <markel.vigo@manchester.ac.uk>
- CC: RDWG <public-wai-rd@w3.org>
Hi Giorgio, Markel, As briefly raised on the teleconference, I think the last part of this section may need some refinement: [[ This perspective is innovative as it looks beyond the current conformance paradigm and aims to tap more into the user experience, and this is something that is not necessarily defined by current methods of technical validation or document conformance. ]] Actually the issue is that this sentence, in context with the rest of the section, may seem to imply that the two approaches cannot coexist. I believe the discussion about process-oriented guidance dates quite far back and is not really new. In fact, I believe that a suitable process is critical to achieving and maintaining conformance, yet that a standard for conformance is essential for people with disabilities. Maybe something like the following suggestion works better for you? [[ This perspective is innovative/interesting/important as it complements the current conformance paradigm and aims to tap more into the process used to deliver the user experience. This is something that is not necessarily/well/fully/adequately defined by current methods of technical validation or document/product/website conformance [alone]. ]] Happy to discuss further! Best, Shadi -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Activity Lead, W3C/WAI International Program Office Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group (ERT WG) Research and Development Working Group (RDWG)
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:45:33 UTC